The role that highly curated knowledge, provided by domain experts, could play in creating effective tutoring systems is often overlooked within the AI for education community. In this paper, we highlight this topic by discussing two ways such highly curated expert knowledge could help in creating novel educational systems. First, we will look at how one could use explainable AI (XAI) techniques to automatically create lessons. Most existing XAI methods are primarily aimed at debugging AI systems. However, we will discuss how one could use expert specified rules about solving specific problems along with novel XAI techniques to automatically generate lessons that could be provided to learners. Secondly, we will see how an expert specified curriculum for learning a target concept can help develop adaptive tutoring systems, that can not only provide a better learning experience, but could also allow us to use more efficient algorithms to create these systems. Finally, we will highlight the importance of such methods using a case study of creating a tutoring system for pollinator identification, where such knowledge could easily be elicited from experts.

This should be all well and good, provided value-aligned behavior is to not only account for the human bottleneck states are also bottleneck states for the the specified user objectives but also any implicit agent. Otherwise, the agent must make an effort to figure out or unspecified user requirements. The existence what the user's underlying subgoals may be. of such implicit requirements could be particularly To see how such problems may arise, consider an agent common in settings where the user's understanding tasked with guiding a tourist to a famous art museum. The of the task model may differ from the agent's estimate tourist simply says, "Get me a plan to get to the art museum," of the model. Under this scenario, the user unaware of the city's metro system and expecting an may incorrectly expect some agent behavior to be above-ground route passing certain landmarks. The agent, inevitable or guaranteed. This paper addresses such however, might plan a route using the metro system. For the expectation mismatch in the presence of differing agent's metro route, bottlenecks migh include entering the models by capturing the possibility of unspecified metro, making transfers, and exiting at the correct station.

"Human-aware" has become a popular keyword used to describe a particular class of AI systems that are designed to work and interact with humans. While there exists a surprising level of consistency among the works that use the label human-aware, the term itself mostly remains poorly understood. In this work, we retroactively try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with. Additionally, we see that this paradigm offers us intuitive dimensions to understand and categorize the kinds of interactions these systems might have with humans. We show the pedagogical value of these dimensions by using them as a tool to understand and review the current landscape of work related to human-AI systems that purport some form of human modeling. To fit the scope of a workshop paper, we specifically narrowed our review to papers that deal with sequential decision-making and were published in a major AI conference in the last three years. Our analysis helps identify the space of potential research problems that are currently being overlooked. We perform additional analysis on the degree to which these works make explicit reference to results from social science and whether they actually perform user-studies to validate their systems. We also provide an accounting of the various AI methods used by these works.

Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. We employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models. We conduct a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in an argumentation scenario, demonstrating its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation.

This is the first work to look at the application of large language models (LLMs) for the purpose of model space edits in automated planning tasks. To set the stage for this sangam, we explore two different flavors of model space problems that have been studied in the AI planning literature and explore the effect of an LLM on those tasks. We empirically demonstrate how the performance of an LLM contrasts with combinatorial search (CS) - an approach that has been traditionally used to solve model space tasks in planning, both with the LLM in the role of a standalone model space reasoner as well as in the role of a statistical signal in concert with the CS approach as part of a two-stage process. Our experiments show promising results suggesting further forays of LLMs into the exciting world of model space reasoning for planning tasks in the future.

Value alignment problems arise in scenarios where the specified objectives of an AI agent don't match the true underlying objective of its users. The problem has been widely argued to be one of the central safety problems in AI. Unfortunately, most existing works in value alignment tend to focus on issues that are primarily related to the fact that reward functions are an unintuitive mechanism to specify objectives. However, the complexity of the objective specification mechanism is just one of many reasons why the user may have misspecified their objective. A foundational cause for misalignment that is being overlooked by these works is the inherent asymmetry in human expectations about the agent's behavior and the behavior generated by the agent for the specified objective. To address this lacuna, we propose a novel formulation for the value alignment problem, named goal alignment that focuses on a few central challenges related to value alignment. In doing so, we bridge the currently disparate research areas of value alignment and human-aware planning. Additionally, we propose a first-of-its-kind interactive algorithm that is capable of using information generated under incorrect beliefs about the agent, to determine the true underlying goal of the user.

Model reconciliation has been proposed as a way for an agent to explain its decisions to a human who may have a different understanding of the same planning problem by explaining its decisions in terms of these model differences.However, often the human's mental model (and hence the difference) is not known precisely and such explanations cannot be readily computed.In this paper, we show how the explanation generation process evolves in the presence of such model uncertainty or incompleteness by generating {\em conformant explanations} that are applicable to a set of possible models.We also show how such explanations can contain superfluous informationand how such redundancies can be reduced using conditional explanations to iterate with the human to attain common ground. Finally, we will introduce an anytime version of this approach and empirically demonstrate the trade-offs involved in the different forms of explanations in terms of the computational overhead for the agent and the communication overhead for the human.We illustrate these concepts in three well-known planning domains as well as in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with an external human supervisor.

In this paper, we demonstrate how a planner (or a robot as an embodiment of it) can explain its decisions to multiple agents in the loop together considering not only the model that it used to come up with its decisions but also the (often misaligned) models of the same task that the other agents might have had. To do this, we build on our previous work on multi-model explanation generation and extend it to account for settings where there is uncertainty of the robot's model of the explainee and/or there are multiple explainees with different models to explain to. We will illustrate these concepts in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with another human teammate and an external human supervisor.

Human aware planning requires an agent to be aware of the intentions, capabilities and mental model of the human in the loop during its decision process.This can involve generating plans that are explicable to a human observer as well as the ability to provide explanations when such plans cannot be generated. This has led to the notion "multi-model planning'' which aim to incorporate effects of human expectation in the deliberative process of a planner -- either in the form of explicable task planning or explanations produced thereof. In this paper, we bring these two concepts together and show how a planner can account for both these needs and achieve a trade-off during the plan generation process itself by means of a model-space search method MEGA.This in effect provides a comprehensive perspective of what it means for a decision making agent to be "human-aware" by bringing together existing principles of planning under the umbrella of a single plan generation process.We situate our discussion specifically keeping in mind the recent work on explicable planning and explanation generation, and illustrate these concepts in modified versions of two well known planning domains, as well as a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance task with an external supervisor.

Trust between team members is an essential requirement for any successful cooperation. Thus, engendering and maintaining the fellow team members' trust becomes a central responsibility for any member trying to not only successfully participate in the task but to ensure the team achieves its goals. The problem of trust management is particularly challenging in mixed human-robot teams where the human and the robot may have different models about the task at hand and thus may have different expectations regarding the current course of action and forcing the robot to focus on the costly explicable behavior. We propose a computational model for capturing and modulating trust in such longitudinal human-robot interaction, where the human adopts a supervisory role. In our model, the robot integrates human's trust and their expectations from the robot into its planning process to build and maintain trust over the interaction horizon. By establishing the required level of trust, the robot can focus on maximizing the team goal by eschewing explicit explanatory or explicable behavior without worrying about the human supervisor monitoring and intervening to stop behaviors they may not necessarily understand. We model this reasoning about trust levels as a meta reasoning process over individual planning tasks. We additionally validate our model through a human subject experiment.