Αndreas Theodorou

This article surveys the Variable Autonomy (VA) robotics literature that considers two contributory elements to Trustworthy AI: transparency and explainability. These elements should play a crucial role when designing and adopting robotic systems, especially in VA where poor or untimely adjustments of the system’s level of autonomy can lead to errors, control conflicts, user frustration, and ultimate disuse of the system. Despite this need, transparency and explainability is, to the best of our knowledge, mostly overlooked in VA robotics literature or is not considered explicitly. In this article, we aim to present and examine the most recent contributions to the VA literature concerning transparency and explainability. In addition, we propose a way of thinking about VA by breaking these two concepts down based on: the mission of the human-robot team; who the stakeholder is; what needs to be made transparent or explained; why they need it; and how it can be achieved. Last, we provide insights and propose ways to move VA research forward. Our goal with this article is to raise awareness and inter-community discussions among the Trustworthy AI and the VA robotics communities.

Understanding when and why to apply any given eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique is not a straightforward task. There is no single approach that is best suited for a given context. This paper aims to address the challenge of selecting the most appropriate explainer given the context in which an explanation is required. For AI explainability to be effective, explanations and how they are presented needs to be oriented towards the stakeholder receiving the explanation. If—in general—no single explanation technique surpasses the rest, then reasoning over the available methods is required in order to select one that is context-appropriate. Due to the transparency they afford, we propose employing argumentation techniques to reach an agreement over the most suitable explainers from a given set of possible explainers. In this paper, we propose a modular reasoning system consisting of a given mental model of the relevant stakeholder, a reasoner component that solves the argumentation problem generated by a multi-explainer component, and an AI model that is to be explained suitably to the stakeholder of interest. By formalizing supporting premises—and inferences—we can map stakeholder characteristics to those of explanation techniques. This allows us to reason over the techniques and prioritise the best one for the given context, while also offering transparency into the selection decision.