Width-based planning methods exploit the use of conjunctive goals for decomposing problems into subproblems of low width. However, algorithms like SIW fail when the goal is not serializable. In this work, we address this limitation of SIW by using a simple but powerful language for expressing problem decompositions introduced recently by Bonet and Geffner, called policy sketches. A policy sketch R consists of a set of Boolean and numerical features and a set of sketch rules that express how the values of these features are supposed to change. Like general policies, policy sketches are domain general, but unlike policies, the changes captured by sketch rules do not need to be achieved in a single step. We show that many planning domains that cannot be solved by SIW are provably solvable in low polynomial time with the SIW_R algorithm, the version of SIW that employs user-provided policy sketches. Policy sketches are thus shown to be a powerful language for expressing domain-specific knowledge in a simple and compact way and a convenient alternative to languages such as HTNs or temporal logics. Furthermore, policy sketches make it easy to express general problem decompositions and prove key properties like their complexity and width.

AI - Artificial Intelligence AGI - Artificial General Intelligence ANN - Artificial Neural Network ANOVA - Analysis of Variance ANT - Actor Network Theory API - Application Programming Interface APX - Amsterdam Power Exchange AVE - Average Variance Extracted BU - Business Unit CART - Classification and Regression Tree CBMV - Crowd-based Business Model Validation CR - Composite Reliability CT - Computed Tomography CVC - Corporate Venture Capital DR - Design Requirement DP - Design Principle DSR - Design Science Research DSS - Decision Support System EEX - European Energy Exchange FsQCA - Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis GUI - Graphical User Interface HI-DSS - Hybrid Intelligence Decision Support System HIT - Human Intelligence Task IoT - Internet of Things IS - Information System IT - Information Technology MCC - Matthews Correlation Coefficient ML - Machine Learning OCT - Opportunity Creation Theory OGEMA 2.0 - Open Gateway Energy Management 2.0 OS - Operating System R&D - Research & Development RE - Renewable Energies RQ - Research Question SVM - Support Vector Machine SSD - Solid-State Drive SDK - Software Development Kit TCP/IP - Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol TCT - Transaction Cost Theory UI - User Interface VaR - Value at Risk VC - Venture Capital VPP - Virtual Power Plant Chapter I

It is commonly claimed that AI will replace most manual labor in the future; however, is this really the case? AI technologies do have higher image recognition accuracy compared to humans in some limited contexts, and have consistently outperformed humans in classical games such as Go and chess. Nonetheless, we believe that even advanced future developments based on current technology will not lead to robots replacing humans. AI systems' fundamental lack of ability to communicate naturally and effectively with humans is among the most significant reasons that they cannot replace human labor. Here, one may believe that such communication could be achieved via the development of natural language processing (NLP) technology [4]; however, NLP technologies are systems for estimating the content of human statements and their meanings; they do not constitute communication. That is, humans do not feel that robots using such systems truly understand and respond to them appropriately. Therefore, if effective communication is not achieved, robots will continue to function only as tools to assist humans. Advancements improving the accuracy or effectiveness of various specific tasks do not indicate that robots are equivalent to human beings. Under this scenario, how can we enable robots to communicate with humans?

An emerging line of research in Explainable NLP is the creation of datasets enriched with human-annotated explanations and rationales, used to build and evaluate models with step-wise inference and explanation generation capabilities. While human-annotated explanations are used as ground-truth for the inference, there is a lack of systematic assessment of their consistency and rigour. In an attempt to provide a critical quality assessment of Explanation Gold Standards (XGSs) for NLI, we propose a systematic annotation methodology, named Explanation Entailment Verification (EEV), to quantify the logical validity of human-annotated explanations. The application of EEV on three mainstream datasets reveals the surprising conclusion that a majority of the explanations, while appearing coherent on the surface, represent logically invalid arguments, ranging from being incomplete to containing clearly identifiable logical errors. This conclusion confirms that the inferential properties of explanations are still poorly formalised and understood, and that additional work on this line of research is necessary to improve the way Explanation Gold Standards are constructed.

Abstract: Compiling commonsense knowledge is traditionally an AI topic approached by manual labor. Recent advances in web data processing have enabled automated approaches. In this demonstration we will showcase three systems for automated commonsense knowledge base construction, highlighting each time one aspect of specific interest to the data management community. The demos are available online at https://quasimodo.r2.enst.fr, Knowledge and reasoning about general-world concepts are major challenges in AI. In recent years, these tasks are supported by a growing number of knowledge repositories, so-called commonsense knowledge bases (CSKBs), that store statements like lions live in groups, or painters use pencils.

With the increased use of AI methods to provide recommendations in the health, specifically in the food dietary recommendation space, there is also an increased need for explainability of those recommendations. Such explanations would benefit users of recommendation systems by empowering them with justifications for following the system's suggestions. We present the Food Explanation Ontology (FEO) that provides a formalism for modeling explanations to users for food-related recommendations. FEO models food recommendations, using concepts from the explanation domain to create responses to user questions about food recommendations they receive from AI systems such as personalized knowledge base question answering systems. FEO uses a modular, extensible structure that lends itself to a variety of explanations while still preserving important semantic details to accurately represent explanations of food recommendations. In order to evaluate this system, we used a set of competency questions derived from explanation types present in literature that are relevant to food recommendations. Our motivation with the use of FEO is to empower users to make decisions about their health, fully equipped with an understanding of the AI recommender systems as they relate to user questions, by providing reasoning behind their recommendations in the form of explanations.

The use of deep neural networks (DNNs) in safety-critical applications like mobile health and autonomous driving is challenging due to numerous model-inherent shortcomings. These shortcomings are diverse and range from a lack of generalization over insufficient interpretability to problems with malicious inputs. Cyber-physical systems employing DNNs are therefore likely to suffer from safety concerns. In recent years, a zoo of state-of-the-art techniques aiming to address these safety concerns has emerged. This work provides a structured and broad overview of them. We first identify categories of insufficiencies to then describe research activities aiming at their detection, quantification, or mitigation. Our paper addresses both machine learning experts and safety engineers: The former ones might profit from the broad range of machine learning topics covered and discussions on limitations of recent methods. The latter ones might gain insights into the specifics of modern ML methods. We moreover hope that our contribution fuels discussions on desiderata for ML systems and strategies on how to propel existing approaches accordingly.

Ontologies comprising of concepts, their attributes, and relationships, form the quintessential backbone of many knowledge based AI systems. These systems manifest in the form of question-answering or dialogue in number of business analytics and master data management applications. While there have been efforts towards populating domain specific ontologies, we examine the role of document structure in learning ontological relationships between concepts in any document corpus. Inspired by ideas from hypernym discovery and explainability, our method performs about 15 points more accurate than a stand-alone R-GCN model for this task.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly more popular and can be found in workplaces and homes around the world. However, how do we ensure trust in these systems? Regulation changes such as the GDPR mean that users have a right to understand how their data has been processed as well as saved. Therefore if, for example, you are denied a loan you have the right to ask why. This can be hard if the method for working this out uses "black box" machine learning techniques such as neural networks. TrustyAI is a new initiative which looks into explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) solutions to address trustworthiness in ML as well as decision services landscapes. In this paper we will look at how TrustyAI can support trust in decision services and predictive models. We investigate techniques such as LIME, SHAP and counterfactuals, benchmarking both LIME and counterfactual techniques against existing implementations. We also look into an extended version of SHAP, which supports background data selection to be evaluated based on quantitative data and allows for error bounds.

The latest Deep Learning (DL) models for detection and classification have achieved an unprecedented performance over classical machine learning algorithms. However, DL models are black-box methods hard to debug, interpret, and certify. DL alone cannot provide explanations that can be validated by a non technical audience. In contrast, symbolic AI systems that convert concepts into rules or symbols -- such as knowledge graphs -- are easier to explain. However, they present lower generalisation and scaling capabilities. A very important challenge is to fuse DL representations with expert knowledge. One way to address this challenge, as well as the performance-explainability trade-off is by leveraging the best of both streams without obviating domain expert knowledge. We tackle such problem by considering the symbolic knowledge is expressed in form of a domain expert knowledge graph. We present the eXplainable Neural-symbolic learning (X-NeSyL) methodology, designed to learn both symbolic and deep representations, together with an explainability metric to assess the level of alignment of machine and human expert explanations. The ultimate objective is to fuse DL representations with expert domain knowledge during the learning process to serve as a sound basis for explainability. X-NeSyL methodology involves the concrete use of two notions of explanation at inference and training time respectively: 1) EXPLANet: Expert-aligned eXplainable Part-based cLAssifier NETwork Architecture, a compositional CNN that makes use of symbolic representations, and 2) SHAP-Backprop, an explainable AI-informed training procedure that guides the DL process to align with such symbolic representations in form of knowledge graphs. We showcase X-NeSyL methodology using MonuMAI dataset for monument facade image classification, and demonstrate that our approach improves explainability and performance.