Language is what makes us human. Asking questions is how we learn. Building on the foundations of deep learning and symbolic AI, we have developed technology that can answer complex questions with minimal domain-specific training. Initial results are very encouraging – the system outperforms current state-of-the-art techniques on two prominent datasets with no need for specialized end-to-end training. As this technology matures, it will be possible to use it for better customer support, business intelligence, medical informatics, advanced discovery, and much more.

In 2016, Microsoft released a prototype chatbot on Twitter. The automated program, dubbed Tay, responded to tweets and incorporated the content of those tweets into its knowledge base, riffing off the topics to carry on conversations. In less than 24 hours, Microsoft had to yank the program and issue an apology after the software started spewing vile comments, including "I f**king hate feminists" and tweeting that it agreed with Hitler. Online attackers had used crafted comments to pollute the machine-learning algorithm, exploited a specific vulnerability in the program, and recognized that the bot frequently would just repeat comments, a major design flaw. Microsoft apologized, and Tay has not returned.

Recently researchers developed some interest in the knowledge stored in the large pre-trained models. Petroni et al. (2019) investigated BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) and other architectures with respect to their ability of storing commonsense factual knowledge. As the stored knowledge depends heavily on the pre-training corpus, we are curious about whether one can "teach" these kinds of models further knowledge by exposing them to texts from specific domains, like customer complaints in the automotive industry. Especially for product-driven organizations as car manufacturers, customer feedback provides a precious source of information for product improvements, e.g. in terms of potential security risks identified and mentioned by customers. However, the structured use of this data is an open problem in industry, despite numerous investigations with advanced NLP methods (Choe et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Akella et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2017; Joung et al., 2019). Handling this fuzzy data and satisfying the demand for detailed information extraction in an intelligent manner remains challenging. The recent developments in NLP lead us to the idea of evaluating the ability of pre-trained language models to act as a domain-specific knowledge base. We investigate if a language model, further pre-trained on customer feedback, is able to store customer opinions about products, features, and services as knowledge in model parameters.

With the ever-growing achievements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the recent boosted enthusiasm in Financial Technology (FinTech), applications such as credit scoring have gained substantial academic interest. Credit scoring helps financial experts make better decisions regarding whether or not to accept a loan application, such that loans with a high probability of default are not accepted. Apart from the noisy and highly imbalanced data challenges faced by such credit scoring models, recent regulations such as the right to explanation' introduced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) have added the need for model interpretability to ensure that algorithmic decisions are understandable and coherent. An interesting concept that has been recently introduced is eXplainable AI (XAI), which focuses on making black-box models more interpretable. In this work, we present a credit scoring model that is both accurate and interpretable. For classification, state-of-the-art performance on the Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) and Lending Club (LC) Datasets is achieved using the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model. The model is then further enhanced with a 360-degree explanation framework, which provides different explanations (i.e. Evaluation through the use of functionallygrounded, application-grounded and human-grounded analysis show that the explanations provided are simple, consistent as well as satisfy the six predetermined hypotheses testing for correctness, effectiveness, easy understanding, detail sufficiency and trustworthiness. Credit scoring models are decision models that help lenders decide whether or not to accept a loan application based on the model's expectation of the applicant being capable or not of repaying the financial obligations [1]. Such models are beneficial since they reduce the time needed for the loan approval process, allow loan officers to concentrate on only a percentage of the applications, lead to cost savings, reduce human subjectivity and decrease default risk [2]. There has been a lot of research on this problem, with various Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques proposed. Such techniques might be exceptional in predictive power but are also known as black-box methods since they provide no explanations behind their decisions, making humans unable to interpret them [3]. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any financial expert is ready to trust the predictions of a model without any sort of justification [4]. With regards to credit scoring, lenders will need to understand the model's predictions to ensure that decisions are made for the correct reasons.

Acquiring commonsense knowledge and reasoning is recognized as an important frontier in achieving general Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent research in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community has demonstrated significant progress in this problem setting. Despite this progress, which is mainly on multiple-choice question answering tasks in limited settings, there is still a lack of understanding (especially at scale) of the nature of commonsense knowledge itself. In this paper, we propose and conduct a systematic study to enable a deeper understanding of commonsense knowledge by doing an empirical and structural analysis of the ConceptNet knowledge base. ConceptNet is a freely available knowledge base containing millions of commonsense assertions presented in natural language.

On May 8, 2018, Google I/O was held at Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, California. If you are wondering what Google I/O is, don't worry, I've got your back. "Google I/O brings together developers from around the globe annually for talks, hands-on learning with Google experts, and the first look at Google's latest developer products." In the Keynote, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet Inc. (Google's parent company), shared the then-latest developments that Google had been working on. One of the projects that he spoke about was something that maybe no one saw coming; an application of Artificial Intelligence (AI), soon to be on our own smartphones, that left the world in awe.

Acquiring commonsense knowledge and reasoning is recognized as an important frontier in achieving general Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent research in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community has demonstrated significant progress in this problem setting. Despite this progress, which is mainly on multiple-choice question answering tasks in limited settings, there is still a lack of understanding (especially at scale) of the nature of commonsense knowledge itself. In this paper, we propose and conduct a systematic study to enable a deeper understanding of commonsense knowledge by doing an empirical and structural analysis of the ConceptNet knowledge base. ConceptNet is a freely available knowledge base containing millions of commonsense assertions presented in natural language. Detailed experimental results on three carefully designed research questions, using state-of-the-art unsupervised graph representation learning ('embedding') and clustering techniques, reveal deep substructures in ConceptNet relations, allowing us to make data-driven and computational claims about the meaning of phenomena such as 'context' that are traditionally discussed only in qualitative terms. Furthermore, our methodology provides a case study in how to use data-science and computational methodologies for understanding the nature of an everyday (yet complex) psychological phenomenon that is an essential feature of human intelligence.

Machine Learning (ML) has been increasingly used to aid humans to make better and faster decisions. However, non-technical humans-in-the-loop struggle to comprehend the rationale behind model predictions, hindering trust in algorithmic decision-making systems. Considerable research work on AI explainability attempts to win back trust in AI systems by developing explanation methods but there is still no major breakthrough. At the same time, popular explanation methods (e.g., LIME, and SHAP) produce explanations that are very hard to understand for non-data scientist persona. To address this, we present JOEL, a neural network-based framework to jointly learn a decision-making task and associated explanations that convey domain knowledge. JOEL is tailored to human-in-the-loop domain experts that lack deep technical ML knowledge, providing high-level insights about the model's predictions that very much resemble the experts' own reasoning. Moreover, we collect the domain feedback from a pool of certified experts and use it to ameliorate the model (human teaching), hence promoting seamless and better suited explanations. Lastly, we resort to semantic mappings between legacy expert systems and domain taxonomies to automatically annotate a bootstrap training set, overcoming the absence of concept-based human annotations. We validate JOEL empirically on a real-world fraud detection dataset. We show that JOEL can generalize the explanations from the bootstrap dataset. Furthermore, obtained results indicate that human teaching can further improve the explanations prediction quality by approximately $13.57\%$.

Its application involves a wide range of area including expert systems[3][4][5], information fusion[6], pattern classfication[7][8][9], risk evaluation [10,11] [12], image recognition [13], classification[14,15] and data mining [16] etc. The original DS theory requires deterministic belie degrees and belief structures. However, in practical situations, evidence coming from multiple sources may be influenced by unexpected extraneous factors. The lack of information, linguistic ambiguity or vagueness and cognitive bias all contribute to the uncertain evidence obtained in practical situations. For example, during risk assessment, expert may be unable to provide a precise assessment if he/she is not 100% sure.

Providing appropriate structures around human resources can streamline operations and thus facilitate the competitiveness of an organization. To achieve this goal, modern organizations need to acquire an accurate and timely understanding of human resource grouping while faced with an ever-changing environment. The use of process mining offers a promising way to help address the need through utilizing event log data stored in information systems. By extracting knowledge about the actual behavior of resources participating in business processes from event logs, organizational models can be constructed, which facilitate the analysis of the de facto grouping of human resources relevant to process execution. Nevertheless, open research gaps remain to be addressed when applying the state-of-the-art process mining to analyze resource grouping. For one, the discovery of organizational models has only limited connections with the context of process execution. For another, a rigorous solution that evaluates organizational models against event log data is yet to be proposed. In this paper, we aim to tackle these research challenges by developing a novel framework built upon a richer definition of organizational models coupling resource grouping with process execution knowledge. By introducing notions of conformance checking for organizational models, the framework allows effective evaluation of organizational models, and therefore provides a foundation for analyzing and improving resource grouping based on event logs. We demonstrate the feasibility of this framework by proposing an approach underpinned by the framework for organizational model discovery, and also conduct experiments on real-life event logs to discover and evaluate organizational models.