Contrastive Explanations of Plans Through Model Restrictions
  In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a
mismatch between a proposed plan and the user's expectation. We frame
Explainable AI Planning in the context of the plan negotiation problem, in
which a succession of hypothetical planning problems are generated and solved.
The object of the negotiation is for the user to understand and ultimately
arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that
demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are
contrastive, i.e. "why A rather than B?". We use the data from this study to
construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan
negotiation. We formally define our approach to plan negotiation through model
restriction as an iterative process. This approach generates hypothetical
problems and contrastive plans by restricting the model through constraints
implied by user questions. We formally define model-based compilations in
PDDL2.1 of each constraint derived from a user question in the taxonomy, and
empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The
compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework that employs
iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user
study.
