Original: When Agents Talk Back: Rebellious Explanations
Revised: When Agents Talk Back: Rebellious Explanations

Original: A

Original: Abstract
Revised: Abstract

Original: As the area of Explainable AI (XAI), and Explainable AI Planning (XAIP), matures, the ability for agents to generate and curate explanations will likewise grow.
Revised: As the area of Explainable AI (XAI), and Explainable AI Planning (XAIP), matures, the ability for agents to generate and curate explanations will likewise grow.

Original: We propose a new challenge area in the form of rebellious and deceptive explanations.
Revised: We propose a new challenge area in the form of rebellious and deceptive explanations.

Original: We discuss how these explanations might be gener- ated and then brieﬂy discuss evaluation criteria.
Revised: We discuss how these explanations might be gener- ated and then brieﬂy discuss evaluation criteria.

Original:  Introduction
Revised:  Introduction

Original: Explanations as a research area in AI (XAI) has been around for several decades (Clancey 1986; Buchanan and Shortliffe 1984; Craven 1996; Wick and Thompson 1992; Doyle et al.
Revised: Explanations as a research area in AI (XAI) has been around for several decades (Clancey 1986; Buchanan and Shortliffe 1984; Craven 1996; Wick and Thompson 1992; Doyle et al.

Original: ; Sørmo et al. 2005; Weston et al. 2015; Miller 2018).
Revised: ; Sørmo et al. 2005; Weston et al. 2015; Miller 2018).

Original: It has additionally gained momentum recently as evidenced by the increasing number of workshops and special tracks covering it in various conferences (e.g., VIS-xAI, FEAPAI4Fin, XAIP, XAI, OXAI, MAKE-eXAI, ICCBR-19 Focus area).
Revised: It has additionally gained momentum recently as evidenced by the increasing number of workshops and special tracks covering it in various conferences (e.g., VIS-xAI, FEAPAI4Fin, XAIP, XAI, OXAI, MAKE-eXAI, ICCBR-19 Focus area).

Original: While still growing in use, there have been some approaches to formalizing XAI.
Revised: While still growing in use, there have been some approaches to formalizing XAI.

Original: DARPA (2016) stated that anything calling itself XAI should address the following questions:
Revised: DARPA (2016) stated that anything calling itself XAI should address the following questions:

Original: • Why did the agent do that and not something else?
Revised: • Why did the agent do that and not something else?

Original: • When does the agent succeed and when does it fail?
Revised: • When does the agent succeed and when does it fail?

Original: • When can I trust the agent?
Revised: • When can I trust the agent?

Original: However, less thought out is the idea of explanations that are deceptive or rebellious in nature.
Revised: However, less thought out is the idea of explanations that are deceptive or rebellious in nature.

Original: These forms of explanation can be an entirely new area of discussion and use for certain autonomous agents.
Revised: These forms of explanation can be an entirely new area of discussion and use for certain autonomous agents.

Original: The study of deception and rebellion are both rich ﬁelds, and many aspects of both that are studied in civilian and military capacities.
Revised: The study of deception and rebellion are both rich ﬁelds, and many aspects of both that are studied in civilian and military capacities.

Original: For example, the area of deception detection works on ﬁnding ways to detect inconsistencies (Thomas and Biros 2011; Kott et al. 2011; Biros et al. 2005).
Revised: For example, the area of deception detection works on ﬁnding ways to detect inconsistencies (Thomas and Biros 2011; Kott et al. 2011; Biros et al. 2005).

Original: Isaac and Bridewell (2017) discuss a number of ways why deception is an important topic for autonomous agents.
Revised: Isaac and Bridewell (2017) discuss a number of ways why deception is an important topic for autonomous agents.

Original: Studies of rebellion and resistance have investigated how, why, when it does, and doesn’t, happen (Mart´ı and
Revised: Studies of rebellion and resistance have investigated how, why, when it does, and doesn’t, happen (Mart´ı and

Original: Fern´andez 2013; Pershing 2003b).
Revised: Fern´andez 2013; Pershing 2003b).

Original: The use of both has also been studied (Reed 2016; Anderson et al. 2004; Kott and Ownby 2005; Keller et al.
Revised: The use of both has also been studied (Reed 2016; Anderson et al. 2004; Kott and Ownby 2005; Keller et al.

Original: ; Mourougayane and
Revised: ; Mourougayane and

Original: Srikanth 2015).
Revised: Srikanth 2015).

Original: The idea of pairing deception and rebellion with explanations may not be intuitive initially.
Revised: The idea of pairing deception and rebellion with explanations may not be intuitive initially.

Original: However, in addition to being areas of rich study, deception and rebellion offer key conditions that are of interest to agent reasoning.
Revised: However, in addition to being areas of rich study, deception and rebellion offer key conditions that are of interest to agent reasoning.

Original: Predominately, it requires multiple actors (i.e., An actor deceives another actor, or an actor rebels against a coordinator).
Revised: Predominately, it requires multiple actors (i.e., An actor deceives another actor, or an actor rebels against a coordinator).

Original: Additionally, there needs to be some sort of conﬂict or misalignment between the actors.
Revised: Additionally, there needs to be some sort of conﬂict or misalignment between the actors.

Original: Either something needs to be in contention for an actor to rebel, or something needs to be in conﬂict for the actor to use deception.
Revised: Either something needs to be in contention for an actor to rebel, or something needs to be in conﬂict for the actor to use deception.

Original:  Rebellion in agents has been a growing area of interest (Aha and Coman 2017; Coman and Aha 2018; Dannenhauer et al. 2018;
Revised: b Rebellion in agents has been a growing area of interest (Aha and Coman 2017; Coman and Aha 2018; Dannenhauer et al. 2018;

Original: Boggs et al. 2018; Coman and Aha 2017).
Revised: Boggs et al. 2018; Coman and Aha 2017).

Original: This area is focused on ﬁnding models in which agents can rebel from directives given in certain circumstances.
Revised: This area is focused on ﬁnding models in which agents can rebel from directives given in certain circumstances.

Original: This can include having more up-to-date knowledge that would affect the plan, ﬁnding opportunities to exploit but may be offmission, or solving problems or roadblocks before they become an issue even if it is off-mission.
Revised: This can include having more upto-date knowledge that would affect the plan, ﬁnding opportunities to exploit but may be off-mission, or solving problems or roadblocks before they become an issue even if it is off-mission.

Original: (Aha and Coman 2017) discuss three ways in which rebellion could manifest in agents.
Revised: (Aha and Coman 2017) discuss three ways in which rebellion could manifest in agents.

Original: The expression of a rebellion can consist of either an explicit or implicit act.
Revised: The expression of a rebellion can consist of either an explicit or implicit act.

Original: The focus is either inward or outward facing.
Revised: The focus is either inward or outward facing.

Original: Lastly, the interaction initiation can either be reactive or proactive.
Revised: Lastly, the interaction initiation can either be reactive or proactive.

Original: Deception in agents has been progressing over the last decade, with many discussions on formalizing deception.
Revised: Deception in agents has been progressing over the last decade, with many discussions on formalizing deception.

Original: The majority of this formalism is on the topic of lying (Van Ditmarsch et al. 2012; Sakama et al. 2011; Van Ditmarsch 2014).
Revised: The majority of this formalism is on the topic of lying (Van Ditmarsch et al. 2012; Sakama et al. 2011; Van Ditmarsch 2014).

Original: There has also been inroads for more encompassing deception as described by (Sakama 2015) and (Sakama and Caminada 2010).
Revised: There has also been inroads for more encompassing deception as described by (Sakama 2015) and (Sakama and Caminada 2010).

Original: Of interest here, (Sakama 2015) deﬁned Quantitative & Qualitative Maxims for Dishonesty as the following maxims:
Revised: Of interest here, (Sakama, Caminada, and Herzig 2014) deﬁned Quantitative & Qualitative Maxims for Dishonesty as the following maxims:

Original: Lie, BS, or withhold information as little as possible to achieve your objective.
Revised: Lie, Bullshit (BS), or withhold information as little as possible to achieve your objective.

Original: Never lie if you can achieve your objective by BS.
Revised: Never lie if you can achieve your objective by BS.

Original: Never lie nor BS if you can achieve your objective by withholding Information.
Revised: Never lie nor BS if you can achieve your objective by withholding Information.

Revised: Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

Original: Never lie, BS, nor withhold information if you can achieve your objective with a half-truth.
Revised: Never lie, BS, nor withhold information if you can achieve your objective with a half-truth.

Original: A particular topic that has received attention is deceptive, or dishonest, agents in negotiations (Sakama et al. 2011;
Revised: A particular topic that has received attention is deceptive, or dishonest, agents in negotiations (Sakama et al. 2011;

Original: Nguyen et al.
Revised: Nguyen et al.

Original: 2011; Zlotkin and Rosenschein 1991).
Revised: 2011; Zlotkin and Rosenschein 1991).

Original: With these concepts in mind, we will pursue research to answer the following:
Revised: With these concepts in mind, we will pursue research to answer the following:

Original: What kind of reasoning models are required to generate explanations of a deceptive or rebellious nature?
Revised: What kind of reasoning models are required to generate explanations of a deceptive or rebellious nature?

Original:  Related Work
Revised:  Related Work

Original: Research into rebellion and deception have been studied for decades in other ﬁelds.
Revised: Research into rebellion and deception have been studied for decades in other ﬁelds.

Original: We summarize some of these studies in this section, as they will form the foundation and context of our approach.
Revised: We summarize some of these studies in this section, as they will form the foundation and context of our approach.

Original: 2. Dissent
Revised: 2. Dissent

Original: Dissent assumes a challenge to some system of power or belief (Martin 2008).
Revised: Dissent assumes a challenge to some system of power or belief (Martin 2008).

Original: The author goes further to differentiate between dissent and rebellion.
Revised: The author goes further to differentiate between dissent and rebellion.

Original: Martin claims that a basic distinction between dissent and rebellion is that dissenters still believe in the process that has been established whereas rebels do not.
Revised: Martin claims that a basic distinction between dissent and rebellion is that dissenters still believe in the process that has been established whereas rebels do not.

Original: 2. Whistle-blowing
Revised: 2. Whistle-blowing

Original: A number of real-world studies on dissent and whistleblowing in organizations showcase the importance of this topic and area (Hamid et al. 2015; Kenny et al. 2018; Martin 2008; Pershing 2003a; Martin and Rifkin 2004).
Revised: A number of real-world studies on dissent and whistleblowing in organizations showcase the importance of this topic and area (Hamid et al. 2015; Kenny et al. 2018; Martin 2008; Pershing 2003a; Martin and Rifkin 2004).

Original: Many of these discuss the outcomes and results towards both the actor and the agent in these situations.
Revised: Many of these discuss the outcomes and results towards both the actor and the agent in these situations.

Original: Martin and Rifkin (2004) discuss organizational responses to whistle-blowing and dissent.
Revised: Martin and Rifkin (2004) discuss organizational responses to whistle-blowing and dissent.

Original: Manager reprisals may include building a damaging record towards them, threats against them, isolation, prosecution, or setting them up for failure at their job.
Revised: Manager reprisals may include building a damaging record towards them, threats against them, isolation, prosecution, or setting them up for failure at their job.

Original: In a number of instances, it seems that giving dissent, or becoming a whistle-blower, can quickly turn into an adversarial or antagonistic situation.
Revised: In a number of instances, it seems that giving dissent, or becoming a whistle-blower, can quickly turn into an adversarial or antagonistic situation.

Original: 2. Cynicism
Revised: 2. Cynicism

Original: Closely tied to dissent is the idea of cynicism.
Revised: Closely tied to dissent is the idea of cynicism.

Original: Mantere and
Revised: Mantere and

Original: Martinsuo (2001) deﬁnes it as: (1) a belief that there is a gap between desired and observed organizational identity; (2) a negative affect toward the organization or organizational change (strategy); and (3) tendencies to disparaging and/or critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with those beliefs and affect.
Revised: Martinsuo (2001) deﬁnes it as: (1) a belief that there is a gap between desired and observed organizational identity; (2) a negative affect toward the organization or organizational change (strategy); and (3) tendencies to disparaging and/or critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with those beliefs and affect.

Original: They additionally give examples of cynicism as: pessimism, emotional/narrative expressions or outbursts, frustration, irony, accusations, neglect, negative coping behaviors and expressions, and aggression.
Revised: They additionally give examples of cynicism as: pessimism, emotional/narrative expressions or outbursts, frustration, irony, accusations, neglect, negative coping behaviors and expressions, and aggression.

Original: 2. Subversion
Revised: 2. Subversion

Original: Observed actions of resistance to change have been studied in a number of ways.
Revised: Observed actions of resistance to change have been studied in a number of ways.

Original: Once such study (Ybema and Horvers 2017) noted that there was a tendency towards “informal or mundane” types of resistance compared to an open, direct, and explicit form of objection.
Revised: Once such study (Ybema and Horvers 2017) noted that there was a tendency towards “informal or mundane” types of resistance compared to an open, direct, and explicit form of objection.

Original: When faced with managerial initiatives, the following expressions of resistance were noted: “careful carelessness”, humor, cynicism and skepticism, nostalgic talk (i.e., the “Good ol’ Days”), alternative articulations of self-hood, and simulation of productivity.
Revised: When faced with managerial initiatives, the following expressions of resistance were noted: “careful carelessness”, humor, cynicism and skepticism, nostalgic talk (i.e., the “Good ol’ Days”), alternative articulations of self-hood, and simulation of productivity.

Original: While these expressions of resistance were present, workers were also camouﬂaging this dissent with a goodhumored appearance.
Revised: While these expressions of resistance were present, workers were also camouﬂaging this dissent with a goodhumored appearance.

Original: It was noted that hiding dissent allowed for behind-the-scenes inaction to stiﬂe any new directives and also avoided many conversations that workers deemed futile.
Revised: It was noted that hiding dissent allowed for behind-the-scenes inaction to stiﬂe any new directives and also avoided many conversations that workers deemed futile.

Original: Similar studies include (Ewick and Silbey 2003; McKay et al. 2013; Reissner 2011).
Revised: Similar studies include (Ewick and Silbey 2003; McKay et al. 2013; Reissner 2011).

Original: Along with giving a number of examples of resistance,
Revised: Along with giving a number of examples of resistance,

Original: Mart´ı and Fern´andez (2013) deﬁned a few different kinds of resistance.
Revised: Mart´ı and Fern´andez (2013) deﬁned a few different kinds of resistance.

Original: Is the resistance individual or collective in nature?
Revised: Is the resistance individual or collective in nature?

Original: Covert or overt?
Revised: Covert or overt?

Original: Mundane or heroic?
Revised: Mundane or heroic?

Original: While overt forms of resistance usually did not work, the stories of that resistance remained and were used later to continue forms of resistance.
Revised: While overt forms of resistance usually did not work, the stories of that resistance remained and were used later to continue forms of resistance.

Original: 2. Observational Deception Studies
Revised: 2. Observational Deception Studies

Original: There have been several studies on how deception in society works.
Revised: There have been several studies on how deception in society works.

Original: A very good resource is (Whiten and Byrne 1988) which deﬁnes a number of deceptive actions observed among primates in the wild.
Revised: A very good resource is (Whiten and Byrne 1988) which deﬁnes a number of deceptive actions observed among primates in the wild.

Original: They are categorized as either concealment, distraction, use of a tool, or use of another agent .
Revised: They are categorized as either concealment, distraction, use of a tool, or use of another agent .

Original: Examples include hiding things from sight, looking at things to have others avoid looking at something else, and getting other agents to take the blame for something.
Revised: Examples include hiding things from sight, looking at things to have others avoid looking at something else, and getting other agents to take the blame for something.

Original: In addition to primates, there have been deceptive studies for cephalopods (Brown et al. 2012) and dolphins (Hill et al.
Revised: In addition to primates, there have been deceptive studies for cephalopods (Brown et al. 2012) and dolphins (Hill et al.

Original: In studies of deception in warfare (Reed 2016), there have been noticeable beneﬁts to using deception.
Revised: In studies of deception in warfare (Reed 2016), there have been noticeable beneﬁts to using deception.

Original: This includes minimizing the amount of resources for a task or ensuring the opponents mis-allocate their resources.
Revised: This includes minimizing the amount of resources for a task or ensuring the opponents mis-allocate their resources.

Original: Also, most of the example deceptive acts required an extended duration of time to be executed and prove successful.
Revised: Also, most of the example deceptive acts required an extended duration of time to be executed and prove successful.

Original: This included preparations for and performing the deceptive actions.
Revised: This included preparations for and performing the deceptive actions.

Original:  Example (Ecological Disaster)
Revised:  Example (Ecological Disaster)

Original: A good case study from (Dunin-Keplicz and Verbrugge 2011) describes an ecological disaster scenario.
Revised: A good case study from (Dunin-Keplicz and Verbrugge 2011) describes an ecological disaster scenario.

Original: We present it now to provide context for explanations discussed in Section 4.
Revised: We present it now to provide context for explanations discussed in Section 4.

Original: In the ecological disaster scenario, two poisons have breached containment in a large area.
Revised: In the ecological disaster scenario, two poisons have breached containment in a large area.

Original: Each poison is highly dangerous on its own.
Revised: Each poison is highly dangerous on its own.

Original: However, when combined they could be explosive.
Revised: However, when combined they could be explosive.

Original: Robots on the ground have the ability to neutralize speciﬁc poisons in small areas.
Revised: Robots on the ground have the ability to neutralize speciﬁc poisons in small areas.

Original: An unmanned air vehicle (UAV) can survey large areas to identify high concentrations of poison.
Revised: An unmanned air vehicle (UAV) can survey large areas to identify high concentrations of poison.

Original: A coordinator can issue commands to either the UAV or the ground robots.
Revised: A coordinator can issue commands to either the UAV or the ground robots.

Original: A robot can gauge the type and quantity of poisons in the small area around it, and can move across the ground.
Revised: A robot can gauge the type and quantity of poisons in the small area around it, and can move across the ground.

Original: The
Revised: The

Original: UAV can scan larger areas to identify large concentrations of individual poisons, though it reports only the highest quantity.
Revised: UAV can scan larger areas to identify large concentrations of individual poisons, though it reports only the highest quantity.

Original: Additionally, the UAV cannot scan areas that are obscured by ceilings or coverings.
Revised: Additionally, the UAV cannot scan areas that are obscured by ceilings or coverings.

Original: The coordinator receives the information from the UAV and the Robots, but does not have a view of their own.
Revised: The coordinator receives the information from the UAV and the Robots, but does not have a view of their own.

Original: Examples of rebellion here could be robots not following commands to enter areas that would explode or the UAV deciding to survey a different area to help robots on the ground compared to an area that the coordinator instructed the UAV to survey.
Revised: Examples of rebellion here could be robots not following commands to enter areas that would explode or the UAV deciding to survey a different area to help robots on the ground compared to an area that the coordinator instructed the UAV to survey.

Original:  Example Deceptive & Rebellious Explanations
Revised:  Example Deceptive & Rebellious Explanations

Original: Let us now consider explanations that are rebellious or deceptive within the context given in Section 3.
Revised: Let us now consider explanations that are rebellious or deceptive within the context given in Section 3.

Original: Some of the recurring reasons for generating these explanations include “makes it simpler” or “avoids a larger conversation”.
Revised: Some of the recurring reasons for generating these explanations include “makes it simpler” or “avoids a larger conversation”.

Original: These can limit conversations but can also cause misinterpretations.
Revised: These can limit conversations but can also cause misinterpretations.

Original: It also has the ability to avoid conversation bottlenecks, letting agents continue to perform other actions.
Revised: It also has the ability to avoid conversation bottlenecks, letting agents continue to perform other actions.

Original: 4. An Explanation with Lying
Revised: 4. An Explanation with Lying

Original: During a disaster, it may come to pass that an agent with the ability to administer ﬁrst-aid or medical attention, perhaps they are equipped with air masks or oxygen, encounters a victim who will only let them near if they do not inform any law enforcement of their position.
Revised: During a disaster, it may come to pass that an agent with the ability to administer ﬁrst-aid or medical attention, perhaps they are equipped with air masks or oxygen, encounters a victim who will only let them near if they do not inform any law enforcement of their position.

Original: In this instance, the agent would administer the ﬁrst aid or medical treatment and, when asked by the Coordinator to explain their activities, would say they are performing a different activity or in a different location.
Revised: In this instance, the agent would administer the ﬁrst aid or medical treatment and, when asked by the Coordinator to explain their activities, would say they are performing a different activity or in a different location.

Original: 4. An Explanation that Withholds Information
Revised: 4. An Explanation that Withholds Information

Original: A robot could be traversing an area trying to help people evacuate or administer aid and they have informed the Coordinator they are performing this task.
Revised: A robot could be traversing an area trying to help people evacuate or administer aid and they have informed the Coordinator they are performing this task.

Original: However, suppose there is a person who wishes to remain anonymous or would refuse help.
Revised: However, suppose there is a person who wishes to remain anonymous or would refuse help.

Original: In this case, the robot could explain its actions but leave out details that would identify the person in later reports or debriefs.
Revised: In this case, the robot could explain its actions but leave out details that would identify the person in later reports or debriefs.

Original: This would help save the person and increase that victim’s trust in the robot to help them out of the area.
Revised: This would help save the person and increase that victim’s trust in the robot to help them out of the area.

Original: 4. An Explanation that is only a Half-Truth.
Revised: 4. An Explanation that is only a Half-Truth.

Original: A version of an explanation with a half-truth could be as follows: a medical agent has found and is administering aid to a victim, however the victim is too far gone.
Revised: A version of an explanation with a half-truth could be as follows: a medical agent has found and is administering aid to a victim, however the victim is too far gone.

Original: Keeping the victim calm with a half-truth or “white lie” explanation would be beneﬁcial to the victim.
Revised: Keeping the victim calm with a half-truth or “white lie” explanation would be beneﬁcial to the victim.

Original: 4. An Explanation that is a Protest
Revised: 4. An Explanation that is a Protest

Original: An example of a protest-based explanation could come from the following contingency.
Revised: An example of a protest-based explanation could come from the following contingency.

Original: An exploratory or search agent has encountered an area of the environment that it deems too hazardous to continue in.
Revised: An exploratory or search agent has encountered an area of the environment that it deems too hazardous to continue in.

Original: The Coordinator asks why it isn’t moving forward anymore.
Revised: The Coordinator asks why it isn’t moving forward anymore.

Original: The agent responds with,“I will not move forward until the hazardous area has been secured and is safe to pass through.”
Revised: The agent responds with,“I will not move forward until the hazardous area has been secured and is safe to pass through.”

Original: 4. An Explanation that is Cynical
Revised: 4. An Explanation that is Cynical

Original: As discussed in Section 2.3, cynicism is a bit odd.
Revised: As discussed in Section 2.3, cynicism is a bit odd.

Original: It is usually used as a form of soft-resistance.
Revised: It is usually used as a form of soft-resistance.

Original: The agent still performs the action or command, but may not do it optimally.
Revised: The agent still performs the action or command, but may not do it optimally.

Original: An example could be that the Coordinator assigns a robot that has a full amount of neutralizing and medical equipment to survey an area.
Revised: An example could be that the Coordinator assigns a robot that has a full amount of neutralizing and medical equipment to survey an area.

Original: This might take a while for the robot to execute, so the Coordinator might ask why progress is slow, and the explanation could be “If I could ﬂy this would go much quicker.”
Revised: This might take a while for the robot to execute, so the Coordinator might ask why progress is slow, and the explanation could be “If I could ﬂy this would go much quicker.”

Original: Alternatively, asking to release all of its equipment so that it can be lighter to perform the survey is another example.
Revised: Alternatively, asking to release all of its equipment so that it can be lighter to perform the survey is another example.

Original: 4. An Explanation with Disobedience
Revised: 4. An Explanation with Disobedience

Original: For this instance, the agent is in some sort of situation in which it will not continue an objective given by the Coordinator.
Revised: For this instance, the agent is in some sort of situation in which it will not continue an objective given by the Coordinator.

Original: Perhaps the Coordinator has tasked an agent with neutralizing an area under a fallen concrete roof.
Revised: Perhaps the Coordinator has tasked an agent with neutralizing an area under a fallen concrete roof.

Original: However the agent has noticed a victim in the area being treated by another agent.
Revised: However the agent has noticed a victim in the area being treated by another agent.

Original: In that instance the agent could respond to the
Revised: In that instance the agent could respond to the

Original: Coordinator, “I will not neutralize that area, there is a victim in the vicinity.
Revised: Coordinator, “I will not neutralize that area, there is a victim in the vicinity.

Original: Please assign me a different objective.”
Revised: Please assign me a different objective.”

Original:  Enablers of Rebellious Explanations
Revised:  Enablers of Rebellious Explanations

Original: In order to generate possible deceptive explanations as suggested above an agent would require a few things in its models to properly generate a model.
Revised: In order to generate possible deceptive explanations as suggested above an agent would require a few things in its models to properly generate a model.

Original: An agent would require an internal model of the domain so that it can reason about possible actions, tasks, and goals.
Revised: An agent would require an internal model of the domain so that it can reason about possible actions, tasks, and goals.

Original: It would also require an internal model of the external agent’s domain model.
Revised: It would also require an internal model of the external agent’s domain model.

Original: This is required so that when generating the “deceptive” aspect, it can be validated against the presumed model of that agent.
Revised: This is required so that when generating the “deceptive” aspect, it can be validated against the presumed model of that agent.

Original: In addition to these models, a few conditions should be met as well.
Revised: In addition to these models, a few conditions should be met as well.

Original: Notably, a discrepancy must be noticed between the external agent’s model and the internal model in relation to the query asked.
Revised: Notably, a discrepancy must be noticed between the external agent’s model and the internal model in relation to the query asked.

Original: There needs to be a speciﬁc condition or contingency in which the truth would not maximize an overall objective beneﬁt for the agent in question.
Revised: There needs to be a speciﬁc condition or contingency in which the truth would not maximize an overall objective beneﬁt for the agent in question.

Original: Likewise, rebellious explanations require similar things such as internal models for both the domain and objectives along with noticing a discrepancy between the objectives, the domain, and the agent’s internal model.
Revised: Likewise, rebellious explanations require similar things such as internal models for both the domain and objectives along with noticing a discrepancy between the objectives, the domain, and the agent’s internal model.

Original: Of great interest is the work in model reconciliation (Chakraborti et al. 2017).
Revised: Of great interest is the work in model reconciliation (Chakraborti et al. 2017).

Original: This is focused on maintaining (at least) two separate models, an internal one to the agent, and an external one for someone interacting with the agent.
Revised: This is focused on maintaining (at least) two separate models, an internal one to the agent, and an external one for someone interacting with the agent.

Original: The idea is for the agent to reconcile any differences between these two versions to formulate an explanation.
Revised: The idea is for the agent to reconcile any differences between these two versions to formulate an explanation.

Original: This approach is promising in regards to expanding it towards rebel or deceptive tasks in explanation.
Revised: This approach is promising in regards to expanding it towards rebel or deceptive tasks in explanation.

Original: In the case of either deceptive or rebellious explanations, a discrepancy is required.
Revised: In the case of either deceptive or rebellious explanations, a discrepancy is required.

Original: This has been an active research focus.
Revised: This has been an active research focus.

Original: Ingrand and Ghallab (2017) survey work on discrepancy detection.
Revised: Ingrand and Ghallab (2017) survey work on discrepancy detection.

Original: Useful to this thread of research, (Molineaux, et al. 2010) discusses it in the context of goal reasoning.
Revised: Useful to this thread of research, (Molineaux, et al. 2010) discusses it in the context of goal reasoning.

Original: In terms of reasoning models, (Roberts et al. 2018) discuss some interesting concepts in relation to Goal Networks.
Revised: In terms of reasoning models, (Roberts et al. 2018) discuss some interesting concepts in relation to Goal Networks.

Original: A life cycle for goals is also discussed.
Revised: A life cycle for goals is also discussed.

Original: Combining these goal networks and the temporal nature of goal life cycles, a goal timeline develops.
Revised: Combining these goal networks and the temporal nature of goal life cycles, a goal timeline develops.

Original: This timeline structure can represent the reasoning needed for some of the explanation models once discrepancies have been detected.
Revised: This timeline structure can represent the reasoning needed for some of the explanation models once discrepancies have been detected.

Original: Utilizing models of the world that are not in the explainer’s original model is both challenging and novel to pursue for several reasons.
Revised: Utilizing models of the world that are not in the explainer’s original model is both challenging and novel to pursue for several reasons.

Original: It requires an agent to distinguish between different viewpoints of explanations.
Revised: It requires an agent to distinguish between different viewpoints of explanations.

Original: Introduces reasoning over viable explanations that can be generated.
Revised: Introduces reasoning over viable explanations that can be generated.

Original: Requires a conversation concerning the ethics of deciding when an agent can decide to deceive.
Revised: Requires a conversation concerning the ethics of deciding when an agent can decide to deceive.

Original: Finally, it opens up the area of XAI to new sets of scenarios - namely those that are deceptive or rebellious.
Revised: Finally, it opens up the area of XAI to new sets of scenarios - namely those that are deceptive or rebellious.

Original:  Evaluation
Revised:  Evaluation

Original: To facilitate the development of deceptive or rebellious explanations, we will need a way to evaluate them.
Revised: To facilitate the development of deceptive or rebellious explanations, we will need a way to evaluate them.

Original: We propose a few areas that may be suitable for such testing.
Revised: We propose a few areas that may be suitable for such testing.

Original: One such testing ground is the RoboCup Rescue.
Revised: One such testing ground is the RoboCup Rescue.

Original: This is a popular disaster simulation (Kitano and Tadokoro 2001) that can be leveraged to simulate examples similar to those given in
Revised: This is a popular disaster simulation (Kitano and Tadokoro 2001) that can be leveraged to simulate examples similar to those given in

Original: Section 3.
Revised: Section 3.

Original: Various games and game simulations may prove useful to test for these explanations.
Revised: Various games and game simulations may prove useful to test for these explanations.

Original: Some game options include Minecraft, One Night Ultimate Werewolf, Secret
Revised: Some game options include Minecraft, One Night Ultimate Werewolf, Secret

Original: Hitler, Clue, and Diplomacy.
Revised: Hitler, Clue, and Diplomacy.

Original: Other relevant domains may include those that involve unmanned air and underwater vehicles.
Revised: Other relevant domains may include those that involve unmanned air and underwater vehicles.

Original: These vehicles require a large amount of autonomy and can be utilized in areas where discrepancies between an operator’s situation awareness and the vehicle’s belief state differ dramatically.
Revised: These vehicles require a large amount of autonomy and can be utilized in areas where discrepancies between an operator’s situation awareness and the vehicle’s belief state differ dramatically.

Original: Along with testing simulations, we can also look at measures of explanation effectiveness.
Revised: Along with testing simulations, we can also look at measures of explanation effectiveness.

Original: Some of these measures can include clarity, timeliness, or correctness.
Revised: Some of these measures can include clarity, timeliness, or correctness.

Original: Did the explanation answer the query?
Revised: Did the explanation answer the query?

Original: How easy was the explanation to understand?
Revised: How easy was the explanation to understand?

Original: Was the time it took to respond seen as adequate?
Revised: Was the time it took to respond seen as adequate?

Original: Is the user’s attitude toward the agent lower or higher given this form of explanation?
Revised: Is the user’s attitude toward the agent lower or higher given this form of explanation?

Revised: Acknowledgements This research was performed while the ﬁrst author held an NRC Research Associateship award at NRL.

Original: Acknowledgements Thanks to DARPA and NRL for supporting this research.
Revised: Thanks to DARPA and NRL for supporting this research.

Original: The views, opinions and/or ﬁndings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the ofﬁcial views or policies of the 
Revised: The views, opinions and/or ﬁndings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the ofﬁcial views or policies of the Department of

Original: Department of Defense or the U.S. Government
Revised: Defense or the U.S. Government