This work explores scene graphs as a distilled representation of high-level information for autonomous driving, applied to future driver-action prediction. Given the scarcity and strong imbalance of data samples, we propose a self-supervision pipeline to infer representative and well-separated embeddings. Key aspects are interpretability and explainability; as such, we embed in our architecture attention mechanisms that can create spatial and temporal heatmaps on the scene graphs. We evaluate our system on the ROAD dataset against a fully-supervised approach, showing the superiority of our training regime.

The provision of natural language explanations for the predictions of deep-learning-based vehicle controllers is critical as it enhances transparency and easy audit. In this work, a state-of-the-art (SOTA) prediction and explanation model is thoroughly evaluated and validated (as a benchmark) on the new Sense–Assess–eXplain (SAX). Additionally, we developed a new explainer model that improved over the baseline architecture in two ways: (i) an integration of part of speech prediction and (ii) an introduction of special token penalties. On the BLEU metric, our explanation generation technique outperformed SOTA by a factor of 7.7 when applied on the BDD-X dataset. The description generation technique is also improved by a factor of 1.3. Hence, our work contributes to the realisation of future explainable autonomous vehicles.

As robots become more ubiquitous across human spaces, it is becoming increasingly relevant for researchers to ask the question, “how can we ensure that we are designing robots to be sufficiently equipped to treat people fairly?”. This workshop brings together researchers across the fields of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), fairness in machine learning, design, and transparency in AI to shed light on the relevant methodological challenges surrounding issues of fairness and transparency in HRI. In our workshop, we will attempt to identify synergies between these various fields. In particular, we will focus on how HRI can leverage these existing rich body of work to guide the formalization of fairness metrics and methodologies. Another goal of the workshop is to foster a community of interdisciplinary researchers to encourage collaboration. The complexity in defining fairness lies in its context sensitive nature, as such we look to the influx of definitions from the field of fairness in artificial intelligence, design, and organizational psychology to derive a set of definitions that could serve as guidelines for researchers in HRI.

In commentary driving, drivers verbalise their observations, assessments and intentions. By speaking out their thoughts, both learning and expert drivers are able to create a better understanding and awareness of their surroundings. In the intelligent vehicle context, automated driving commentary can provide intelligible explanations about driving actions, thereby assisting a driver or an end-user during driving operations in challenging and safety-critical scenarios. In this paper, we conducted a field study in which we deployed a research vehicle in an urban environment to obtain data. While collecting sensor data of the vehicle’s surroundings, we obtained driving commentary from a driving instructor using the think-aloud protocol. We analysed the driving commentary and uncovered an explanation style; the driver first announces his observations, announces his plans, and then makes general remarks. He also makes counterfactual comments. We successfully demonstrated how factual and counterfactual natural language explanations that follow this style could be automatically generated using a transparent tree-based approach. Generated explanations for longitudinal actions (e.g., stop and move) were deemed more intelligible and plausible by human judges compared to lateral actions, such as lane changes. We discussed how our approach can be built on in the future to realise more robust and effective explainability for driver assistance as well as partial and conditional automation of driving functions.

The automotive industry has witnessed an increasing level of development in the past decades; from manufacturing manually operated vehicles to manufacturing vehicles with a high level of automation. With the recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), automotive companies now employ blackbox AI models to enable vehicles to perceive their environment and make driving decisions with little or no input from a human. With the hope to deploy autonomous vehicles (AV) on a commercial scale, the acceptance of AV by society becomes paramount and may largely depend on their degree of transparency, trustworthiness, and compliance with regulations. The assessment of the compliance of AVs to these acceptance requirements can be facilitated through the provision of explanations for AVs’ behaviour. Explainability is therefore seen as an important requirement for AVs. AVs should be able to explain what they have ‘seen’, done, and might do in environments in which they operate. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of the existing work in explainable autonomous driving. First, we open by providing a motivation for explanations by highlighting the importance of transparency, accountability, and trust in AVs; and examining existing regulations and standards related to AVs. Second, we identify and categorise the different stakeholders involved in the development, use, and regulation of AVs and elicit their AV explanation requirements. Third, we provide a rigorous review of previous work on explanations for the different AV operations (i.e., perception, localisation, planning, vehicle control, and system management). Finally, we discuss pertinent challenges and provide recommendations including a conceptual framework for AV explainability. This survey aims to provide the fundamental knowledge required of researchers who are interested in explanation provisions in autonomous driving.

The safe deployment of autonomous vehicles (AV s) in real world scenarios requires that AV s are accountable. One way of ensuring accountability is through the provision of explanations for what the vehicles have ‘seen’, done and might do in a given scenario. Intelligible explanations can help developers and regulators to assess AV s' behaviour, and in turn, uphold accountability. In this paper, we propose an interpretable (tree-based) and user-centric approach for explaining autonomous driving behaviours. In a user study, we examined different explanation types instigated by investigatory queries. We conducted an experiment to identify scenarios that require explanations and the corresponding appropriate explanation types for such scenarios. Our findings show that an explanation type matters mostly in emergency and collision driving conditions. Also, providing intelligible explanations (especially contrastive types) with causal attributions can improve accountability in autonomous driving. The proposed interpretable approach can help realise such intelligible explanations with causal attributions.

With the increased use of machine learning in decision-making scenarios, there has been a growing interest in explaining and understanding the outcomes of machine learning models. Despite this growing interest, existing works on interpretability and explanations have been mostly intended for expert users. Explanations for general users have been neglected in many usable and practical applications (e.g., image tagging, caption generation). It is important for non-technical users to understand features and how they affect an instance-specific prediction to satisfy the need for justification. In this paper, we propose a model-agnostic method for generating context-based explanations aiming for general users. We implement partial masking on segmented components to identify the contextual importance of each segment in scene classification tasks. We then generate explanations based on feature importance. We present visual and text-based explanations: (i) saliency map presents the pertinent components with a descriptive textual justification, (ii) visual map with a color bar graph showing the relative importance of each feature for a prediction. Evaluating the explanations using a user study (N = 50), we observed that our proposed explanation method visually outperformed existing gradient and occlusion based methods. Hence, our proposed explanation method could be deployed to explain models’ decisions to non-expert users in real-world applications.