`Why didn't you allocate this task to them?' Negotiation-Aware Explicable Task Allocation and Contrastive Explanation Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01640v4
• Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 21:00:57 GMT
• Title: `Why didn't you allocate this task to them?' Negotiation-Aware Explicable Task Allocation and Contrastive Explanation Generation
• Abstract summary: We propose a central Artificial Intelligence Task Allocation (AITA) that simulates a negotiation. If a team-member is unhappy with the proposed allocation, we allow them to question the proposed allocation using a counterfactual. We show that (1) the allocation proposed using our method appears fair to the majority, and (2) when a counterfactual is raised, explanations generated are easy to comprehend and convincing.
• Score: 19.265913720022574
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Task allocation is an important problem in multi-agent systems. It becomes more challenging when the team-members are humans with imperfect knowledge about their teammates' costs and the overall performance metric. In this paper, we propose a centralized Artificial Intelligence Task Allocation (AITA) that simulates a negotiation and produces a negotiation-aware explicable task allocation. If a team-member is unhappy with the proposed allocation, we allow them to question the proposed allocation using a counterfactual. By using parts of the simulated negotiation, we are able to provide contrastive explanations that provide minimum information about other's cost to refute their foil. With human studies, we show that (1) the allocation proposed using our method appears fair to the majority, and (2) when a counterfactual is raised, explanations generated are easy to comprehend and convincing. Finally, we empirically study the effect of different kinds of incompleteness on the explanation-length and find that underestimation of a teammate's costs often increases it.

Related papers

• From Sycophancy to Sensemaking: Premise Governance for Human-AI Decision Making [0.0]
  Low-friction assistants can become sycophantic, baking in implicit assumptions and pushing verification costs onto experts.<n>We argue reliable human-AI partnership requires a shift from answer generation to collaborative premise governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T17:42:54Z)
• Learning Steerable Clarification Policies with Collaborative Self-play [67.67872810596839]
  To handle ambiguous queries, AI assistants need a policy for managing their uncertainty.<n>We propose to train steerable policies for managing this uncertainty using self-play.<n>We show this leads to a steerable policy that changes its behavior predictably conditioned on the provided costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T18:49:54Z)
• Teaching Language Models To Gather Information Proactively [53.85419549904644]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to function as collaborative partners.<n>In this work, we introduce a new task paradigm: proactive information gathering.<n>We design a scalable framework that generates partially specified, real-world tasks, masking key information.<n>Within this setup, our core innovation is a reinforcement finetuning strategy that rewards questions that elicit genuinely new, implicit user information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T23:50:09Z)
• Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion [60.3761154043329]
  We introduce a unified framework and a well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion.<n>This perspective makes explicit the common knowledge of the game structure and grants the receiver comparable commitment capabilities.<n>The framework is validated through a two-stage validation-and-inference paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T08:42:34Z)
• Assistive Large Language Model Agents for Socially-Aware Negotiation Dialogues [47.977032883078664]
  We develop assistive agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) that aid interlocutors in business negotiations. A third LLM acts as a remediator agent to rewrite utterances violating norms for improving negotiation outcomes. We provide rich empirical evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness in negotiations across three different negotiation topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T09:07:40Z)
• Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMs [58.620269228776294]
  We propose a task-agnostic framework for resolving ambiguity by asking users clarifying questions. We evaluate systems across three NLP applications: question answering, machine translation and natural language inference. We find that intent-sim is robust, demonstrating improvements across a wide range of NLP tasks and LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T00:18:50Z)
• Be Selfish, But Wisely: Investigating the Impact of Agent Personality in Mixed-Motive Human-Agent Interactions [24.266490660606497]
  We find that self-play RL fails to learn the value of compromise in a negotiation. We modify the training procedure in two novel ways to design agents with diverse personalities and analyze their performance with human partners. We find that although both techniques show promise, a selfish agent, which maximizes its own performance while also avoiding walkaways, performs superior to other variants by implicitly learning to generate value for both itself and the negotiation partner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T20:31:35Z)
• Mastering the Task of Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models and Consistent Reasoning Environment [52.592199835286394]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) aims to extract objective structured knowledge from natural texts. Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable in-context learning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T17:11:42Z)
• Language of Bargaining [60.218128617765046]
  We build a novel dataset for studying how the use of language shapes bilateral bargaining. Our work also reveals linguistic signals that are predictive of negotiation outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T13:52:01Z)
• Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting [80.9896041501715]
  Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T18:02:34Z)
• Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making [12.652229245306671]
  We show that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T18:59:31Z)
• Multi-Agent Neural Rewriter for Vehicle Routing with Limited Disclosure of Costs [65.23158435596518]
  Solving the multi-vehicle routing problem as a team Markov game with partially observable costs. Our multi-agent reinforcement learning approach, the so-called multi-agent Neural Rewriter, builds on the single-agent Neural Rewriter to solve the problem by iteratively rewriting solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T09:17:40Z)
• Prompting Contrastive Explanations for Commonsense Reasoning Tasks [74.7346558082693]
  Large pretrained language models (PLMs) can achieve near-human performance on commonsense reasoning tasks. We show how to use these same models to generate human-interpretable evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-12T17:06:13Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated [40.78019510022835]
  We introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. We show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T18:56:15Z)
• Are We On The Same Page? Hierarchical Explanation Generation for Planning Tasks in Human-Robot Teaming using Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We argue that the agent-generated explanations should be abstracted to be aligned with the level of details the human teammate desires to maintain the recipient's cognitive load. We show that hierarchical explanations achieved better task performance and behavior interpretability while reduced cognitive load.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-22T02:14:52Z)
• Negotiating Team Formation Using Deep Reinforcement Learning [32.066083116314815]
  We propose a framework for training agents to negotiate and form teams using deep reinforcement learning. We evaluate our approach on both non-spatial and spatially extended team-formation negotiation environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T15:41:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.