End-users' trust in automated agents is important as automated decision-making and planning is increasingly used in many aspects of people's lives. In real-world applications of planning, multiple optimization objectives are often involved. Thus, planning agents' decisions can involve complex tradeoffs among competing objectives. It can be difficult for the end-users to understand why an agent decides on a particular planning solution on the basis of its objective values. As a result, the users may not know whether the agent is making the right decisions, and may lack trust in it. In this work, we contribute an approach, based on contrastive explanation, that enables a multi-objective MDP planning agent to explain its decisions in a way that communicates its tradeoff rationale in terms of the domain-level concepts. We conduct a human subjects experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of our explanation approach in a mobile robot navigation domain. The results show that our approach significantly improves the users' understanding, and confidence in their understanding, of the tradeoff rationale of the planning agent.

Debugging and isolating changes responsible for regression test failures are some of the most challenging aspects of modern software development. Automatic bug localization techniques reduce the manual effort developers spend examining code, for example, by focusing attention on the minimal subset of recent changes that results in the test failure, or on changes to components with most dependencies or highest churn. We observe that another subset of changes is worth the developers' attention: the complement of the maximal set of changes that does not produce the failure. While for simple, independent source-code changes, existing techniques localize the failure cause to a small subset of those changes, we find that when changes interact, the failure cause is often in our proposed subset and not in the subset existing techniques identify. In studying 45 regression failures in a large, open-source project, we find that for 87% of those failures, the complement of the maximal passing set of changes is different from the minimal failing set of changes, and that for 78% of the failures, our technique identifies relevant changes ignored by existing work. These preliminary results suggest that combining our ideas with existing techniques, as opposed to using either in isolation, can improve the effectiveness of bug localization tools.