Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn the Relationship Between KR Approaches for Explainable Planning
178
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this paper, we build upon notions from knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) to expand a preliminary logic-based framework that characterizes the model reconciliation problem for explainable planning. We also provide a detailed exposition on the relationship between similar KR techniques, such as abductive explanations and belief change, and their applicability to explainable planning.
rate research
Read More
Scaling probabilistic models to large realistic problems and datasets is a key challenge in machine learning. Central to this effort is the development of tractable probabilistic models (TPMs): models whose structure guarantees efficient probabilistic inference algorithms. The current landscape of TPMs is fragmented: there exist various kinds of TPMs with different strengths and weaknesses. Two of the most prominent classes of TPMs are determinantal point processes (DPPs) and probabilistic circuits (PCs). This paper provides the first systematic study of their relationship. We propose a unified analysis and shared language for discussing DPPs and PCs. Then we establish theoretical barriers for the unification of these two families, and prove that there are cases where DPPs have no compact representation as a class of PCs. We close with a perspective on the central problem of unifying these tractable models.
The increasing use of social media sites in countries like India has given rise to large volumes of code-mixed data. Sentiment analysis of this data can provide integral insights into peoples perspectives and opinions. Developing robust explainability techniques which explain why models make their predictions becomes essential. In this paper, we propose an adequate methodology to integrate explainable approaches into code-mixed sentiment analysis.
Interest in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence has been growing for decades and has accelerated recently. As Artificial Intelligence models have become more complex, and often more opaque, with the incorporation of complex machine learning techniques, explainability has become more critical. Recently, researchers have been investigating and tackling explainability with a user-centric focus, looking for explanations to consider trustworthiness, comprehensibility, explicit provenance, and context-awareness. In this chapter, we leverage our survey of explanation literature in Artificial Intelligence and closely related fields and use these past efforts to generate a set of explanation types that we feel reflect the expanded needs of explanation for todays artificial intelligence applications. We define each type and provide an example question that would motivate the need for this style of explanation. We believe this set of explanation types will help future system designers in their generation and prioritization of requirements and further help generate explanations that are better aligned to users and situational needs.
Explainable AI has attracted much research attention in recent years with feature attribution algorithms, which compute feature importance in predictions, becoming increasingly popular. However, there is little analysis of the validity of these algorithms as there is no ground truth in the existing datasets to validate their correctness. In this work, we develop a method to quantitatively evaluate the correctness of XAI algorithms by creating datasets with known explanation ground truth. To this end, we focus on the binary classification problems. String datasets are constructed using formal language derived from a grammar. A string is positive if and only if a certain property is fulfilled. Symbols serving as explanation ground truth in a positive string are part of an explanation if and only if they contributes to fulfilling the property. Two popular feature attribution explainers, Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), are used in our experiments.We show that: (1) classification accuracy is positively correlated with explanation accuracy; (2) SHAP provides more accurate explanations than LIME; (3) explanation accuracy is negatively correlated with dataset complexity.
AI systems have seen significant adoption in various domains. At the same time, further adoption in some domains is hindered by inability to fully trust an AI system that it will not harm a human. Besides the concerns for fairness, privacy, transparency, and explainability are key to developing trusts in AI systems. As stated in describing trustworthy AI Trust comes through understanding. How AI-led decisions are made and what determining factors were included are crucial to understand. The subarea of explaining AI systems has come to be known as XAI. Multiple aspects of an AI system can be explained; these include biases that the data might have, lack of data points in a particular region of the example space, fairness of gathering the data, feature importances, etc. However, besides these, it is critical to have human-centered explanations that are directly related to decision-making similar to how a domain expert makes decisions based on domain knowledge, that also include well-established, peer-validated explicit guidelines. To understand and validate an AI systems outcomes (such as classification, recommendations, predictions), that lead to developing trust in the AI system, it is necessary to involve explicit domain knowledge that humans understand and use.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
