Table of Contents
Fetching ...

A Model for Intelligible Interaction Between Agents That Predict and Explain

A. Baskar, Ashwin Srinivasan, Michael Bain, Enrico Coiera

TL;DR

This paper formalises the interaction model by taking agents to be automata with some special characteristics and defines a protocol for communication between such agents, and defines One- and Two-Way Intelligibility as properties that emerge at run-time by execution of the protocol.

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) has emerged as a powerful form of data modelling with widespread applicability beyond its roots in the design of autonomous agents. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the interaction between people and ML systems. In this paper we view interaction between humans and ML systems within the broader context of communication between agents capable of prediction and explanation. We formalise the interaction model by taking agents to be automata with some special characteristics and define a protocol for communication between such agents. We define One- and Two-Way Intelligibility as properties that emerge at run-time by execution of the protocol. The formalisation allows us to identify conditions under which run-time sequences are bounded, and identify conditions under which the protocol can correctly implement an axiomatic specification of intelligible interaction between a human and an ML system. We also demonstrate using the formal model to: (a) identify instances of One- and Two-Way Intelligibility in literature reports on humans interacting with ML systems providing logic-based explanations, as is done in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP); and (b) map interactions between humans and machines in an elaborate natural-language based dialogue-model to One- or Two-Way Intelligible interactions in the formal model.

A Model for Intelligible Interaction Between Agents That Predict and Explain

TL;DR

This paper formalises the interaction model by taking agents to be automata with some special characteristics and defines a protocol for communication between such agents, and defines One- and Two-Way Intelligibility as properties that emerge at run-time by execution of the protocol.

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) has emerged as a powerful form of data modelling with widespread applicability beyond its roots in the design of autonomous agents. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the interaction between people and ML systems. In this paper we view interaction between humans and ML systems within the broader context of communication between agents capable of prediction and explanation. We formalise the interaction model by taking agents to be automata with some special characteristics and define a protocol for communication between such agents. We define One- and Two-Way Intelligibility as properties that emerge at run-time by execution of the protocol. The formalisation allows us to identify conditions under which run-time sequences are bounded, and identify conditions under which the protocol can correctly implement an axiomatic specification of intelligible interaction between a human and an ML system. We also demonstrate using the formal model to: (a) identify instances of One- and Two-Way Intelligibility in literature reports on humans interacting with ML systems providing logic-based explanations, as is done in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP); and (b) map interactions between humans and machines in an elaborate natural-language based dialogue-model to One- or Two-Way Intelligible interactions in the formal model.
Paper Structure (24 sections, 6 theorems, 5 figures, 5 tables)

This paper contains 24 sections, 6 theorems, 5 figures, 5 tables.

Key Result

Proposition 1

Let Figure fig:mgraph(c) represents the message graph of a collaborative session using the ${\mathtt{PXP(k)}}$ protocol. Then any communication in the session has bounded length.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: The machine's explanation for the classification of an X-ray image and a senior radiologist's feedback.
  • Figure 2: Messages sent ('+") and received ('-') in ${{\mathtt{PXP}}}$ by: (a) automata for agents other than the oracle; and (b) the oracle. Here $\top$ stands for a guard condition that is trivially true. RAT, REF, REV and REJ represent the guard conditions used by the guarded transition system, which are described below.
  • Figure 3: The interactions proposed in madumal. The node-labels represent states and edge-labels representing actions (the prefix on the edge-label denotes the originator of the action). The node-numbering is ours.
  • Figure 4: Text-based choices available to a human interacting with ACUITY.
  • Figure 5: Message-graph obtained from: (a) transitions listed in Table \ref{['tab:allgt']}; (b) the transitions in the ${{\mathtt{PXP}}}$ protocol, which is only between compatible agents (transitions mentioned in Proposition \ref{['prop:illegal']} are excluded) and (c) the transitions defined in the ${{\mathtt{PXP(k)}}}$ protocol (Definition \ref{['def:lxpstar']}, in which self-loops in ${{\mathtt{PXP}}}$ are replaced. We do not show edges where no message is sent or received.

Theorems & Definitions (31)

  • Example 1
  • Example 2: Logic-based ${\mathtt{PEX}}$ functions
  • Remark 1
  • Remark 2: Need for ${\mathtt{PEX}}$ Functions and Compatability
  • Remark 3: Synchronous Communication
  • Remark 4: Noise-free Channels
  • Remark 5: Oracular Communication
  • Definition 1: One-Way Intelligibility
  • Definition 2: Two-Way Intelligibility
  • Remark 6: Strong-Intelligibility Ultra-Strong Intelligibility
  • ...and 21 more