Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bridging the Gap: Providing Post-Hoc Symbolic Explanations for Sequential Decision-Making Problems with Inscrutable Representations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2002.01080 v4 pith:NDQZ2OQ7 submitted 2020-02-04 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords explanationsuserallowingdecision-makingdecisionsinscrutablemethodsmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As increasingly complex AI systems are introduced into our daily lives, it becomes important for such systems to be capable of explaining the rationale for their decisions and allowing users to contest these decisions. A significant hurdle to allowing for such explanatory dialogue could be the vocabulary mismatch between the user and the AI system. This paper introduces methods for providing contrastive explanations in terms of user-specified concepts for sequential decision-making settings where the system's model of the task may be best represented as an inscrutable model. We do this by building partial symbolic models of a local approximation of the task that can be leveraged to answer the user queries. We test these methods on a popular Atari game (Montezuma's Revenge) and variants of Sokoban (a well-known planning benchmark) and report the results of user studies to evaluate whether people find explanations generated in this form useful.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen

    cs.CY 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes a definition of contestability for AI, a four-dimension taxonomy, and a weighted Contestability Assessment Score, applied to three illustrative case studies.

Pith tools