Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userHybrid Automated Reasoning Tools: from Black-box to Clear-box Integration
404
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Michael Fink
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Recently, researchers in answer set programming and constraint programming spent significant efforts in the development of hybrid languages and solving algorithms combining the strengths of these traditionally separate fields. These efforts resulted in a new research area: constraint answer set programming (CASP). CASP languages and systems proved to be largely successful at providing efficient solutions to problems involving hybrid reasoning tasks, such as scheduling problems with elements of planning. Yet, the development of CASP systems is difficult, requiring non-trivial expertise in multiple areas. This suggests a need for a study identifying general development principles of hybrid systems. Once these principles and their implications are well understood, the development of hybrid languages and systems may become a well-established and well-understood routine process. As a step in this direction, in this paper we conduct a case study aimed at evaluating various integration schemas of CASP methods.
rate research
Read More
Black box systems for automated decision making, often based on machine learning over (big) data, map a users features into a class or a score without exposing the reasons why. This is problematic not only for lack of transparency, but also for possible biases hidden in the algorithms, due to human prejudices and collection artifacts hidden in the training data, which may lead to unfair or wrong decisions. We introduce the local-to-global framework for black box explanation, a novel approach with promising early results, which paves the road for a wide spectrum of future developments along three dimensions: (i) the language for expressing explanations in terms of highly expressive logic-based rules, with a statistical and causal interpretation; (ii) the inference of local explanations aimed at revealing the logic of the decision adopted for a specific instance by querying and auditing the black box in the vicinity of the target instance; (iii), the bottom-up generalization of the many local explanations into simple global ones, with algorithms that optimize the quality and comprehensibility of explanations.
There has been a recent resurgence of interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) that aims to reduce the opaqueness of AI-based decision-making systems, allowing humans to scrutinize and trust them. Prior work in this context has focused on the attribution of responsibility for an algorithms decisions to its inputs wherein responsibility is typically approached as a purely associational concept. In this paper, we propose a principled causality-based approach for explaining black-box decision-making systems that addresses limitations of existing methods in XAI. At the core of our framework lies probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals, a concept that can be traced back to philosophical, cognitive, and social foundations of theories on how humans generate and select explanations. We show how such counterfactuals can quantify the direct and indirect influences of a variable on decisions made by an algorithm, and provide actionable recourse for individuals negatively affected by the algorithms decision. Unlike prior work, our system, LEWIS: (1)can compute provably effective explanations and recourse at local, global and contextual levels (2)is designed to work with users with varying levels of background knowledge of the underlying causal model and (3)makes no assumptions about the internals of an algorithmic system except for the availability of its input-output data. We empirically evaluate LEWIS on three real-world datasets and show that it generates human-understandable explanations that improve upon state-of-the-art approaches in XAI, including the popular LIME and SHAP. Experiments on synthetic data further demonstrate the correctness of LEWISs explanations and the scalability of its recourse algorithm.
Recently Bonet and Geffner have shown that first-order representations for planning domains can be learned from the structure of the state space without any prior knowledge about the action schemas or domain predicates. For this, the learning problem is formulated as the search for a simplest first-order domain description D that along with information about instances I_i (number of objects and initial state) determine state space graphs G(P_i) that match the observed state graphs G_i where P_i = (D, I_i). The search is cast and solved approximately by means of a SAT solver that is called over a large family of propositional theories that differ just in the parameters encoding the possible number of action schemas and domain predicates, their arities, and the number of objects. In this work, we push the limits of these learners by moving to an answer set programming (ASP) encoding using the CLINGO system. The new encodings are more transparent and concise, extending the range of possible models while facilitating their exploration. We show that the domains introduced by Bonet and Geffner can be solved more efficiently in the new approach, often optimally, and furthermore, that the approach can be easily extended to handle partial information about the state graphs as well as noise that prevents some states from being distinguished.
The recent years have witnessed the rise of accurate but obscure decision systems which hide the logic of their internal decision processes to the users. The lack of explanations for the decisions of black box systems is a key ethical issue, and a limitation to the adoption of machine learning components in socially sensitive and safety-critical contexts. %Therefore, we need explanations that reveals the reasons why a predictor takes a certain decision. In this paper we focus on the problem of black box outcome explanation, i.e., explaining the reasons of the decision taken on a specific instance. We propose LORE, an agnostic method able to provide interpretable and faithful explanations. LORE first leans a local interpretable predictor on a synthetic neighborhood generated by a genetic algorithm. Then it derives from the logic of the local interpretable predictor a meaningful explanation consisting of: a decision rule, which explains the reasons of the decision; and a set of counterfactual rules, suggesting the changes in the instances features that lead to a different outcome. Wide experiments show that LORE outperforms existing methods and baselines both in the quality of explanations and in the accuracy in mimicking the black box.
Analyzing large-scale, multi-experiment studies requires scientists to test each experimental outcome for statistical significance and then assess the results as a whole. We present Black Box FDR (BB-FDR), an empirical-Bayes method for analyzing multi-experiment studies when many covariates are gathered per experiment. BB-FDR learns a series of black box predictive models to boost power and control the false discovery rate (FDR) at two stages of study analysis. In Stage 1, it uses a deep neural network prior to report which experiments yielded significant outcomes. In Stage 2, a separate black box model of each covariate is used to select features that have significant predictive power across all experiments. In benchmarks, BB-FDR outperforms competing state-of-the-art methods in both stages of analysis. We apply BB-FDR to two real studies on cancer drug efficacy. For both studies, BB-FDR increases the proportion of significant outcomes discovered and selects variables that reveal key genomic drivers of drug sensitivity and resistance in cancer.
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
