Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a contrastive explanation method for maritime collision avoidance systems, designed to improve transparency for human supervisors. The method compares the system's chosen maneuver against alternative options, highlighting key objectives through visual and textual cues. A user study with marine officers indicated that contrastive explanations aided understanding in complex scenarios, but also increased cognitive load, suggesting the need for adaptive explanation strategies.
Contrastive explanations help maritime officers understand autonomous navigation systems, but can paradoxically increase workload in some scenarios, highlighting the need for adaptive interfaces.
Automated maritime collision avoidance will rely on human supervision for the foreseeable future. This necessitates transparency into how the system perceives a scenario and plans a maneuver. However, the causal logic behind avoidance maneuvers is often complex and difficult to convey to a navigator. This paper explores how to explain these factors in a selective, understandable manner for supervisors with a nautical background. We propose a method for generating contrastive explanations, which provide human-centric insights by comparing a system's proposed solution against relevant alternatives. To evaluate this, we developed a framework that uses visual and textual cues to highlight key objectives from a state-of-the-art collision avoidance system. An exploratory user study with four experienced marine officers suggests that contrastive explanations support the understanding of the system's objectives. However, our findings also reveal that while these explanations are highly valuable in complex multi-vessel encounters, they can increase cognitive workload, suggesting that future maritime interfaces may benefit most from demand-driven or scenario-specific explanation strategies.
