TY - JOUR
T1 - After-Action Review for AI (AAR/AI)
AU - Dodge, Jonathan
AU - Khanna, Roli
AU - Irvine, Jed
AU - Lam, Kin Ho
AU - Mai, Theresa
AU - Lin, Zhengxian
AU - Kiddle, Nicholas
AU - Newman, Evan
AU - Anderson, Andrew
AU - Raja, Sai
AU - Matthews, Caleb
AU - Perdriau, Christopher
AU - Burnett, Margaret
AU - Fern, Alan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.
PY - 2021/8/31
Y1 - 2021/8/31
N2 - Explainable AI is growing in importance as AI pervades modern society, but few have studied how explainable AI can directly support people trying to assess an AI agent. Without a rigorous process, people may approach assessment in ad hoc ways - leading to the possibility of wide variations in assessment of the same agent due only to variations in their processes. AAR, or After-Action Review, is a method some military organizations use to assess human agents, and it has been validated in many domains. Drawing upon this strategy, we derived an After-Action Review for AI (AAR/AI), to organize ways people assess reinforcement learning agents in a sequential decision-making environment. We then investigated what AAR/AI brought to human assessors in two qualitative studies. The first investigated AAR/AI to gather formative information, and the second built upon the results, and also varied the type of explanation (model-free vs. model-based) used in the AAR/AI process. Among the results were the following: (1) participants reporting that AAR/AI helped to organize their thoughts and think logically about the agent, (2) AAR/AI encouraged participants to reason about the agent from a wide range of perspectives, and (3) participants were able to leverage AAR/AI with the model-based explanations to falsify the agent's predictions.
AB - Explainable AI is growing in importance as AI pervades modern society, but few have studied how explainable AI can directly support people trying to assess an AI agent. Without a rigorous process, people may approach assessment in ad hoc ways - leading to the possibility of wide variations in assessment of the same agent due only to variations in their processes. AAR, or After-Action Review, is a method some military organizations use to assess human agents, and it has been validated in many domains. Drawing upon this strategy, we derived an After-Action Review for AI (AAR/AI), to organize ways people assess reinforcement learning agents in a sequential decision-making environment. We then investigated what AAR/AI brought to human assessors in two qualitative studies. The first investigated AAR/AI to gather formative information, and the second built upon the results, and also varied the type of explanation (model-free vs. model-based) used in the AAR/AI process. Among the results were the following: (1) participants reporting that AAR/AI helped to organize their thoughts and think logically about the agent, (2) AAR/AI encouraged participants to reason about the agent from a wide range of perspectives, and (3) participants were able to leverage AAR/AI with the model-based explanations to falsify the agent's predictions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123791997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85123791997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/3453173
DO - 10.1145/3453173
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85123791997
SN - 2160-6455
VL - 11
JO - ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
JF - ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
IS - 3-4
M1 - 29
ER -