Boosted trees is a dominant ML model, exhibiting high accuracy. However, boosted trees are hardly intelligible, and this is a problem whenever they are used in safety-critical applications. Indeed, in such a context, rigorous explanations of the predictions made are expected. Recent work have shown how subset-minimal abductive explanations can be derived for boosted trees, using automated reasoning techniques. However, the generation of such well-founded explanations is intractable in the general case. To improve the scalability of their generation, we introduce the notion of tree-specific explanation for a boosted tree. We show that tree-specific explanations are abductive explanations that can be computed in polynomial time. We also explain how to derive a subset-minimal abductive explanation from a tree-specific explanation. Experiments on various datasets show the computational benefits of leveraging tree-specific explanations for deriving subset-minimal abductive explanations.

We present a method for generating possible proofs of a query with respect to a given Answer Set Programming (ASP) rule set using an abductive process where the space of abducibles is automatically constructed just from the input rules alone. Given a (possibly empty) set of user provided facts, our method infers any additional facts that may be needed for the entailment of a query and then outputs these extra facts, without the user needing to explicitly specify the space of all abducibles. We also present a method to generate a set of directed edges corresponding to the justification graph for the query. Furthermore, through different forms of implicit term substitution, our method can take user provided facts into account and suitably modify the abductive solutions. Past work on abduction has been primarily based on goal directed methods. However these methods can result in solvers that are not truly declarative. Much less work has been done on realizing abduction in a bottom up solver like the Clingo ASP solver. We describe novel ASP programs which can be run directly in Clingo to yield the abductive solutions and directed edge sets without needing to modify the underlying solving engine.

Humans have remarkable capacity to reason abductively and hypothesize about what lies beyond the literal content of an image. By identifying concrete visual clues scattered throughout a scene, we almost can't help but draw probable inferences beyond the literal scene based on our everyday experience and knowledge about the world. For example, if we see a "20 mph" sign alongside a road, we might assume the street sits in a residential area (rather than on a highway), even if no houses are pictured. Can machines perform similar visual reasoning? We present Sherlock, an annotated corpus of 103K images for testing machine capacity for abductive reasoning beyond literal image contents. We adopt a free-viewing paradigm: participants first observe and identify salient clues within images (e.g., objects, actions) and then provide a plausible inference about the scene, given the clue. In total, we collect 363K (clue, inference) pairs, which form a first-of-its-kind abductive visual reasoning dataset. Using our corpus, we test three complementary axes of abductive reasoning. We evaluate the capacity of models to: i) retrieve relevant inferences from a large candidate corpus; ii) localize evidence for inferences via bounding boxes, and iii) compare plausible inferences to match human judgments on a newly-collected diagnostic corpus of 19K Likert-scale judgments. While we find that fine-tuning CLIP-RN50x64 with a multitask objective outperforms strong baselines, significant headroom exists between model performance and human agreement. Data, models, and leaderboard available at http://visualabduction.com/

Abduction is a form of inference that seeks the best explanation for the given observation. Because it provides a reasoning process based on background knowledge, it is used in applications that need convincing explanations. In this study, we consider weighted abduction, which is one of the commonly used mathematical models for abduction. The main difficulty associated with applying weighted abduction to real problems is its computational complexity. A state-of-the-art method formulates weighted abduction as an integer linear programming (ILP) problem and solves it using efficient ILP solvers; however, it is still limited to solving problems that include at most 100 rules of background knowledge and observations.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

The Transform Technology Summits start October 13th with Low-Code/No Code: Enabling Enterprise Agility. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Uncertain information is being taken into account in an increasing number of application fields. In the meantime, abduction has been proved a powerful tool for handling hypothetical reasoning and incomplete knowledge. Probabilistic logical models are a suitable framework to handle uncertain information, and in the last decade many probabilistic logical languages have been proposed, as well as inference and learning systems for them. In the realm of Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), a variety of proof procedures have been defined as well. In this paper, we consider a richer logic language, coping with probabilistic abduction with variables. In particular, we consider an ALP program enriched with integrity constraints `a la IFF, possibly annotated with a probability value. We first present the overall abductive language, and its semantics according to the Distribution Semantics. We then introduce a proof procedure, obtained by extending one previously presented, and prove its soundness and completeness.

Regenerating natural language explanations for science questions is a challenging task for evaluating complex multi-hop and abductive inference capabilities. In this setting, Transformers trained on human-annotated explanations achieve state-of-the-art performance when adopted as cross-encoder architectures. However, while much attention has been devoted to the quality of the constructed explanations, the problem of performing abductive inference at scale is still under-studied. As intrinsically not scalable, the cross-encoder architectural paradigm is not suitable for efficient multi-hop inference on massive facts banks. To maximise both accuracy and inference time, we propose a hybrid abductive solver that autoregressively combines a dense bi-encoder with a sparse model of explanatory power, computed leveraging explicit patterns in the explanations. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed framework can achieve performance comparable with the state-of-the-art cross-encoder while being $\approx 50$ times faster and scalable to corpora of millions of facts. Moreover, we study the impact of the hybridisation on semantic drift and science question answering without additional training, showing that it boosts the quality of the explanations and contributes to improved downstream inference performance.