arXiv subjects

Sarath Sreedharan

Publications and source records attributed to Sarath Sreedharan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Vocabulary Aligned Explanations for Computer Vision Models

Optimizing vision models for accuracy does not force the model to learn and utilize human-understandable and domain-specific concepts and rules. We propose explaining image classifications through domain-specific concepts, visual evidence, and expert knowledge expressed as logical rules. We introduce FLUENT (Framework for Localized, Uncertainty-Aware Explanations in Normative Terminology), a post-hoc framework that ranks expert-authored rules combining jointly required, alternative, and absent concepts. To account for prediction errors, FLUENT combines predicted labels and concept states with empirically estimated likelihoods and concept priors. It scores each rule by calculating support over satisfying assignments to the concepts mentioned in that rule, then normalizes these scores to express relative confidence among candidate explanations. The selected rule is illustrated through occlusion-based highlights for positive concept mentions in the query image and localized examples in retrieved reference images for negative mentions. These illustrations are intended to show end users unfamiliar with the domain what the concepts named in an explanation look like. FLUENT combines domain knowledge and model accuracy, and delivers visual concept highlights and explicit rule confidence to explain an image in the vocabulary of an application domain.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Evaluative Dynamics of AI Integration and Expert Performance under Epistemic Dependence across Heterogeneous Stakes

AI is increasingly integrated into expert workflows, yet how integration affects perceptions of the expert, AI, and their combination remains unclear in domains where lay users are epistemically dependent on AI-assisted experts. We examine this through a novel controlled medical study (N = 166) and a direct cross-domain analysis with pre-existing academic-advising data (n = 157, combined N = 323). Expert errors reduced evaluations of the human expert across domains. Perceived expertise, however, varied by AI integration strategy in the higher-stakes medical task, where automatic AI oversight produced higher ratings than expert-only or expert-initiated AI. Exploratory ordinal sensitivity analyses identified a performance-contingent reuse pattern, with automatic oversight producing greater intended reuse after successful medical performance. Overall, performance-related recalibration appeared comparatively portable, while integration-structure effects were more selective and context-sensitive. These findings suggest that system designers should consider how AI enters expert workflows, not only whether it is present.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

AWARE-RG: Abstraction Aware Explanation of Resiliency Graphs for Cyber Physical Systems

Understanding the security posture of cyber physical systems (CPS) requires reasoning across both information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT). However, a security analyst often holds an incomplete, role-specific view of the underlying system which has most likely resulted from their knowledge limited by a need-to-know framework. Such an incomplete view can potentially lead them to incorrectly assess if a cyber attack produces an untoward physical consequence resulting in making uninformed decisions about system resilience. In this work, we present AWARE-RG (Abstraction Aware Explanation of Resiliency Graphs), a semi-automated, human-in-the-loop framework that provides an analyst with a role-bounded, need-to-know explanations of resiliency paths in a CPS. The AWARE-RG abstraction structure is derived using Formal Concept Analysis over MITRE ATT&CK for ICS tactics, ordered by the ICS Cyber Kill Chain. For valid attack-fault queries, plan repair and backward means-end analysis identify the missing dependencies, explain why the physical hazard is reachable, and suggest defensive strategies. For invalid attack-fault queries, AWARE-RG localizes the first abstraction level at which the path fails, and reports confirmed blocking conditions as hardening pointers.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Safety Graph: When Safety Responses Become Attack Surfaces in Cyber-Physical Systems

Modern industrial control systems (ICS) are susceptible to cyber attacks triggering safety failures in the operational technology (OT) layer. The traditional way to mitigate any failure in OT is to implement safety responses. However, we show in this work that these responses can open up new attack surfaces, thereby vastly expanding the scope of lateral movement. Existing frameworks model cyber-to-physical escalation but provide no mechanism to reason about how these safety responses to OT-failures can trigger new cascading cyber attacks in the Information Technology (IT) layer. To enable such reasoning, we introduce Safety Graph (SG), a formal framework unifying three paradigms - Attack Graphs (AG), Fault Trees (FT), and Event Trees (ET) - over a shared propositional state space, capturing the full bidirectional IT-OT cascade. We provide a sound and complete compilation of SG to a classical AI planning problem, performing plan search using A* to find cross-layer cascade paths. Through a Web3D modeling and simulation of the Tennessee Eastman chemical process plant, which is a widely used chemical engineering benchmark serving as a standard for testing control, monitoring and fault propagation, we demonstrate that the planning compilation of SG automatically discovers safety-response-induced lateral movements, and identifies the responsible barriers that are unidentifiable under existing models. A complexity and scalability analysis characterizes how the planning compilation of SG scales with model size and cascade depth. To the best of our knowledge, SG is the first framework to formally model IT-OT attacks and enable operators to explore the problem of cyber attacks triggering cascading failures in ICS.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

A Mental Model Based Framework of Trust

Handling trust is a core requirement of effective interaction between people and AI agents. Thus, any decision-making framework designed to work with people must be able to estimate human trust. In this paper, we propose a mental model-based framework of trust that captures multidimensional aspects of trust and can be used to infer human trust. This framework can also be used as a foundation for any trust-aware decision-making framework. Through our mental model-based framework of trust, we propose a formal framework that captures intuitions about trust present in extant literature. We show how our framework captures various dimensions of trust perception and then use the framework to define trust evolution, human reliance, and decision-making. Additionally, we also propose a formalization of the appropriate level of trust in the agent. Using human subject studies, we evaluate if (1) changes in trust can be achieved by adjusting human beliefs about the agent according to predictions made by our mental model framework and (2) adjustments in human belief lead to corresponding modifications in trust perceptions; performance, process, and purpose, by controlling different aspects of the model.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Asymmetric Trust Effects of Corrective AI in Expert Advisory Workflows under Epistemic Dependence

The increasing integration of AI-powered tools into expert workflows, such as medicine, law, and finance, raises a critical question: how does AI involvement influence a user`s trust in the human expert, the AI system, and the human-AI team? This question is especially important in expert advisory settings where users are epistemically dependent on human-AI systems: they are recipients of guidance produced by an expert using AI support, but often lack the domain knowledge needed to independently verify the recommendation. We investigated these dynamics through a user study (N=157) using a simulated course-planning task. Our design varied advisor performance and the structure of AI involvement, including whether AI support was present and, when present, whether it was invoked by the advisor or automatically monitored the interaction. Across all conditions, workflows ultimately produced correct schedules. Results show an asymmetric trust effect: advisor errors significantly reduce trust in the human advisor, but visible AI correction does not produce a corresponding increase in trust toward the AI assistant. Trust judgments remain anchored to the advisor across multiple trust measures, and changing the visible structure of AI involvement does not substantially redistribute trust toward the AI assistant or the human-AI team. These findings suggest a limit of corrective AI as a governance mechanism: making AI oversight visible may improve workflow recoverability, but it does not necessarily redistribute trust or responsibility away from the human-facing expert. In epistemically dependent settings, correctness alone may be insufficient for trustworthy AI integration, as users may continue to assign responsibility to the human expert even when AI assistance visibly shapes the final outcome.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

i-EXAM: Instructable and Explainable Attack Connectivity Graph Modeler

i-EXAM is a planning-powered tool that helps system administrators to create security profiles of complex networks and perform what-if analyses to identify network hardening strategies. It leverages planning compilation that provides soundness and completeness guarantees to identify attack paths, evaluate security metrics, generate diverse hardening strategies, and explain these strategies in natural language using Large Language Models.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

NestRL: A Nested Training Regime for Mutual Adaptation in Human-AI Teaming

Mutual adaptation is a central challenge in human-AI teaming, as humans naturally adjust their strategies in response to an AI agent's behavior. Existing approaches attempt to approximate human behavior by diversifying training partners; however, these partners are typically static and fail to capture the adaptive nature of human teammates. When agents are trained jointly in standard multi-agent settings, they often converge to opaque coordination strategies that work only with their co-trained partners, leading to poor generalization. To model adaptive human behavior, we formulate human-AI teaming as an Interactive Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (I-POMDP). We propose NestRL, a nested training regime that learns the solution to a finite-level I-POMDP by training agents at each level against adaptive agents from the level below. This exposes agents to adaptive behavior while preventing emergence of opaque coordination strategies. We provide theoretical analysis showing that NestRL agents avoid convergence to partner-specific strategies, and validate this empirically in the Overcooked domain against state-of-the-art baselines. NestRL achieves higher task performance with both unseen adaptive agents and real human teammates, while exhibiting significantly greater adaptability over the course of interaction.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Seemingly Simple Planning Problems are Computationally Challenging: The Countdown Game

There is a broad consensus that the inability to form long-term plans is one of the key limitations of current foundational models and agents. However, the existing planning benchmarks remain woefully inadequate to truly measure their planning capabilities. Most existing benchmarks either focus on loosely defined tasks like travel planning or end up leveraging existing domains and problems from international planning competitions. While the former tasks are hard to formalize and verify, the latter were specifically designed to test and challenge the weaknesses of existing automated planners. To address these shortcomings, we propose a procedure for creating a planning benchmark centered around the game called Countdown, where a player is expected to form a target number from a list of input numbers through arithmetic operations. From a world-model perspective, each instance induces a fully specified transition model (dynamics) over states and actions, enabling evaluation of planning with verifiable outcomes. We discuss how this problem meets many of the desiderata associated with an ideal benchmark for planning capabilities evaluation. Specifically, the domain allows for an intuitive, natural language description for each problem instance, it is computationally challenging (NP-complete), and the instance space is rich enough that we do not have to worry about memorization. We perform an extensive theoretical analysis, establishing the computational complexity result and demonstrate the advantage of our instance generation procedure over public benchmarks. We evaluate a variety of existing LLM-assisted planning methods on instances generated using our procedure. Our results show that, unlike other domains like 24 Game (a special case of Countdown), our proposed dynamic benchmark remains extremely challenging for existing LLM-based approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

On the Role of Domain Experts in Creating Effective Tutoring Systems

The role that highly curated knowledge, provided by domain experts, could play in creating effective tutoring systems is often overlooked within the AI for education community. In this paper, we highlight this topic by discussing two ways such highly curated expert knowledge could help in creating novel educational systems. First, we will look at how one could use explainable AI (XAI) techniques to automatically create lessons. Most existing XAI methods are primarily aimed at debugging AI systems. However, we will discuss how one could use expert specified rules about solving specific problems along with novel XAI techniques to automatically generate lessons that could be provided to learners. Secondly, we will see how an expert specified curriculum for learning a target concept can help develop adaptive tutoring systems, that can not only provide a better learning experience, but could also allow us to use more efficient algorithms to create these systems. Finally, we will highlight the importance of such methods using a case study of creating a tutoring system for pollinator identification, where such knowledge could easily be elicited from experts.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

SPEAR: Security Posture Evaluation using AI Planner-Reasoning on Attack-Connectivity Hypergraphs

Graph-based frameworks are often used in network hardening to help a cyber defender understand how a network can be attacked and how the best defenses can be deployed. However, incorporating network connectivity parameters in the attack graph, reasoning about the attack graph when we do not have access to complete information, providing system administrator suggestions in an understandable format, and allowing them to do what-if analysis on various scenarios and attacker motives is still missing. We fill this gap by presenting SPEAR, a formal framework with tool support for security posture evaluation and analysis that keeps human-in-the-loop. SPEAR uses the causal formalism of AI planning to model vulnerabilities and configurations in a networked system. It automatically converts network configurations and vulnerability descriptions into planning models expressed in the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). SPEAR identifies a set of diverse security hardening strategies that can be presented in a manner understandable to the domain expert. These allow the administrator to explore the network hardening solution space in a systematic fashion and help evaluate the impact and compare the different solutions.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Make Planning Research Rigorous Again!

In over sixty years since its inception, the field of planning has made significant contributions to both the theory and practice of building planning software that can solve a never-before-seen planning problem. This was done through established practices of rigorous design and evaluation of planning systems. It is our position that this rigor should be applied to the current trend of work on planning with large language models. One way to do so is by correctly incorporating the insights, tools, and data from the automated planning community into the design and evaluation of LLM-based planners. The experience and expertise of the planning community are not just important from a historical perspective; the lessons learned could play a crucial role in accelerating the development of LLM-based planners. This position is particularly important in light of the abundance of recent works that replicate and propagate the same pitfalls that the planning community has encountered and learned from. We believe that avoiding such known pitfalls will contribute greatly to the progress in building LLM-based planners and to planning in general.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Inferring Implicit Goals Across Differing Task Models

One of the significant challenges to generating value-aligned behavior is to not only account for the specified user objectives but also any implicit or unspecified user requirements. The existence of such implicit requirements could be particularly common in settings where the user's understanding of the task model may differ from the agent's estimate of the model. Under this scenario, the user may incorrectly expect some agent behavior to be inevitable or guaranteed. This paper addresses such expectation mismatch in the presence of differing models by capturing the possibility of unspecified user subgoal in the context of a task captured as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) and querying for it as required. Our method identifies bottleneck states and uses them as candidates for potential implicit subgoals. We then introduce a querying strategy that will generate the minimal number of queries required to identify a policy guaranteed to achieve the underlying goal. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in inferring and achieving unstated goals across various tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Expectation Alignment: Handling Reward Misspecification in the Presence of Expectation Mismatch

Detecting and handling misspecified objectives, such as reward functions, has been widely recognized as one of the central challenges within the domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI) safety research. However, even with the recognition of the importance of this problem, we are unaware of any works that attempt to provide a clear definition for what constitutes (a) misspecified objectives and (b) successfully resolving such misspecifications. In this work, we use the theory of mind, i.e., the human user's beliefs about the AI agent, as a basis to develop a formal explanatory framework called Expectation Alignment (EAL) to understand the objective misspecification and its causes. Our EAL framework not only acts as an explanatory framework for existing works but also provides us with concrete insights into the limitations of existing methods to handle reward misspecification and novel solution strategies. We use these insights to propose a new interactive algorithm that uses the specified reward to infer potential user expectations about the system behavior. We show how one can efficiently implement this algorithm by mapping the inference problem into linear programs. We evaluate our method on a set of standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) benchmarks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Human-Modeling in Sequential Decision-Making: An Analysis through the Lens of Human-Aware AI

"Human-aware" has become a popular keyword used to describe a particular class of AI systems that are designed to work and interact with humans. While there exists a surprising level of consistency among the works that use the label human-aware, the term itself mostly remains poorly understood. In this work, we retroactively try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with. Additionally, we see that this paradigm offers us intuitive dimensions to understand and categorize the kinds of interactions these systems might have with humans. We show the pedagogical value of these dimensions by using them as a tool to understand and review the current landscape of work related to human-AI systems that purport some form of human modeling. To fit the scope of a workshop paper, we specifically narrowed our review to papers that deal with sequential decision-making and were published in a major AI conference in the last three years. Our analysis helps identify the space of potential research problems that are currently being overlooked. We perform additional analysis on the degree to which these works make explicit reference to results from social science and whether they actually perform user-studies to validate their systems. We also provide an accounting of the various AI methods used by these works.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2024

Explainable Human-AI Interaction: A Planning Perspective

From its inception, AI has had a rather ambivalent relationship with humans -- swinging between their augmentation and replacement. Now, as AI technologies enter our everyday lives at an ever increasing pace, there is a greater need for AI systems to work synergistically with humans. One critical requirement for such synergistic human-AI interaction is that the AI systems be explainable to the humans in the loop. To do this effectively, AI agents need to go beyond planning with their own models of the world, and take into account the mental model of the human in the loop. Drawing from several years of research in our lab, we will discuss how the AI agent can use these mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception. Although the book is primarily driven by our own research in these areas, in every chapter, we will provide ample connections to relevant research from other groups.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Reducing Human-Robot Goal State Divergence with Environment Design

One of the most difficult challenges in creating successful human-AI collaborations is aligning a robot's behavior with a human user's expectations. When this fails to occur, a robot may misinterpret their specified goals, prompting it to perform actions with unanticipated, potentially dangerous side effects. To avoid this, we propose a new metric we call Goal State Divergence $\mathcal{(GSD)}$, which represents the difference between a robot's final goal state and the one a human user expected. In cases where $\mathcal{GSD}$ cannot be directly calculated, we show how it can be approximated using maximal and minimal bounds. We then input the $\mathcal{GSD}$ value into our novel human-robot goal alignment (HRGA) design problem, which identifies a minimal set of environment modifications that can prevent mismatches like this. To show the effectiveness of $\mathcal{GSD}$ for reducing differences between human-robot goal states, we empirically evaluate our approach on several standard benchmarks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Can LLMs Fix Issues with Reasoning Models? Towards More Likely Models for AI Planning

This is the first work to look at the application of large language models (LLMs) for the purpose of model space edits in automated planning tasks. To set the stage for this union, we explore two different flavors of model space problems that have been studied in the AI planning literature and explore the effect of an LLM on those tasks. We empirically demonstrate how the performance of an LLM contrasts with combinatorial search (CS) -- an approach that has been traditionally used to solve model space tasks in planning, both with the LLM in the role of a standalone model space reasoner as well as in the role of a statistical signal in concert with the CS approach as part of a two-stage process. Our experiments show promising results suggesting further forays of LLMs into the exciting world of model space reasoning for planning tasks in the future.

cs.AI↗