Machine learning becomes increasingly important to tune or even synthesize the behavior of safety-critical components in highly non-trivial environments, where the inability to understand learned components in general, and neural nets in particular, poses serious obstacles to their adoption. Explainability and interpretability methods for learned systems have gained considerable academic attention, but the focus of current approaches on only one aspect of explanation, at a fixed level of abstraction, and limited if any formal guarantees, prevents those explanations from being digestible by the relevant stakeholders (e.g., end users, certification authorities, engineers) with their diverse backgrounds and situation-specific needs. We introduce Fanoos, a flexible framework for combining formal verification techniques, heuristic search, and user interaction to explore explanations at the desired level of granularity and fidelity. We demonstrate the ability of Fanoos to produce and adjust the abstractness of explanations in response to user requests on a learned controller for an inverted double pendulum and on a learned CPU usage model.

While machine-learning models are flourishing and transforming many aspects of everyday life, the inability of humans to understand complex models poses difficulties for these models to be fully trusted and embraced. Thus, interpretability of models has been recognized as an equally important quality as their predictive power. In particular, rule-based systems are experiencing a renaissance owing to their intuitive if-then representation. However, simply being rule-based does not ensure interpretability. For example, overlapped rules spawn ambiguity and hinder interpretation. Here we propose a novel approach of inferring diverse rule sets, by optimizing small overlap among decision rules with a 2-approximation guarantee under the framework of Max-Sum diversification. We formulate the problem as maximizing a weighted sum of discriminative quality and diversity of a rule set. In order to overcome an exponential-size search space of association rules, we investigate several natural options for a small candidate set of high-quality rules, including frequent and accurate rules, and examine their hardness. Leveraging the special structure in our formulation, we then devise an efficient randomized algorithm, which samples rules that are highly discriminative and have small overlap. The proposed sampling algorithm analytically targets a distribution of rules that is tailored to our objective. We demonstrate the superior predictive power and interpretability of our model with a comprehensive empirical study against strong baselines.

We study the notion of boundedness in the context of positive existential rules, that is, whether there exists an upper bound to the depth of the chase procedure, that is independent from the initial instance. By focussing our attention on the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase variants, we give a characterization of boundedness in terms of FO-rewritability and chase termination. We show that it is decidable to recognize if a set of rules is bounded for several classes and outline the complexity of the problem. This report contains the paper published at IJCAI 2019 and an appendix with full proofs.

Reputation is crucial to enabling human or software agents to select among alternative providers. Although several effective reputation assessment methods exist, they typically distil reputation into a numerical representation, with no accompanying explanation of the rationale behind the assessment. Such explanations would allow users or clients to make a richer assessment of providers, and tailor selection according to their preferences and current context. In this paper, we propose an approach to explain the rationale behind assessments from quantitative reputation models, by generating arguments that are combined to form explanations. Our approach adapts, extends and combines existing approaches for explaining decisions made using multi-attribute decision models in the context of reputation. We present example argument templates, and describe how to select their parameters using explanation algorithms. Our proposal was evaluated by means of a user study, which followed an existing protocol. Our results give evidence that although explanations present a subset of the information of trust scores, they are sufficient to equally evaluate providers recommended based on their trust score. Moreover, when explanation arguments reveal implicit model information, they are less persuasive than scores.

The tension between deduction and induction is perhaps the most fundamental issue in areas such as philosophy, cognition and artificial intelligence (AI). The deduction camp concerns itself with questions about the expressiveness of formal languages for capturing knowledge about the world, together with proof systems for reasoning from such knowledge bases. The learning camp attempts to generalize from examples about partial descriptions about the world. In AI, historically, these camps have loosely divided the development of the field, but advances in cross-over areas such as statistical relational learning, neuro-symbolic systems, and high-level control have illustrated that the dichotomy is not very constructive, and perhaps even ill-formed. In this article, we survey work that provides further evidence for the connections between logic and learning. Our narrative is structured in terms of three strands: logic versus learning, machine learning for logic, and logic for machine learning, but naturally, there is considerable overlap. We place an emphasis on the following "sore" point: there is a common misconception that logic is for discrete properties, whereas probability theory and machine learning, more generally, is for continuous properties. We report on results that challenge this view on the limitations of logic, and expose the role that logic can play for learning in infinite domains.

With the recent advances in the field of artificial intelligence, an increasing number of decision-making tasks are delegated to software systems. A key requirement for the success and adoption of such systems is that users must trust system choices or even fully automated decisions. To achieve this, explanation facilities have been widely investigated as a means of establishing trust in these systems since the early years of expert systems. With today's increasingly sophisticated machine learning algorithms, new challenges in the context of explanations, accountability, and trust towards such systems constantly arise. In this work, we systematically review the literature on explanations in advice-giving systems. This is a family of systems that includes recommender systems, which is one of the most successful classes of advice-giving software in practice. We investigate the purposes of explanations as well as how they are generated, presented to users, and evaluated. As a result, we derive a novel comprehensive taxonomy of aspects to be considered when designing explanation facilities for current and future decision support systems. The taxonomy includes a variety of different facets, such as explanation objective, responsiveness, content and presentation. Moreover, we identified several challenges that remain unaddressed so far, for example related to fine-grained issues associated with the presentation of explanations and how explanation facilities are evaluated.

Machine common sense remains a broad, potentially unbounded problem in artificial intelligence (AI). There is a wide range of strategies that can be employed to make progress on this challenge. This article deals with the aspects of modeling commonsense reasoning focusing on such domain as interpersonal interactions. The basic idea is that there are several types of commonsense reasoning: one is manifested at the logical level of physical actions, the other deals with the understanding of the essence of human-human interactions. Existing approaches, based on formal logic and artificial neural networks, allow for modeling only the first type of common sense. To model the second type, it is vital to understand the motives and rules of human behavior. This model is based on real-life heuristics, i.e., the rules of thumb, developed through knowledge and experience of different generations. Such knowledge base allows for development of an expert system with inference and explanatory mechanisms (commonsense reasoning algorithms and personal models). Algorithms provide tools for a situation analysis, while personal models make it possible to identify personality traits. The system so designed should perform the function of amplified intelligence for interactions, including human-machine.

We present a new knowledge-base of hasPart relationships, extracted from a large corpus of generic statements. Complementary to other resources available, it is the first which is all three of: accurate (90% precision), salient (covers relationships a person may mention), and has high coverage of common terms (approximated as within a 10 year old's vocabulary), as well as having several times more hasPart entries than in the popular ontologies ConceptNet and WordNet. In addition, it contains information about quantifiers, argument modifiers, and links the entities to appropriate concepts in Wikipedia and WordNet. The knowledge base is available at https://allenai.org/data/haspartkb

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) extracted from text sources are often noisy and lead to poor performance in downstream application tasks such as KG-based question answering.While much of the recent activity is focused on addressing the sparsity of KGs by using embeddings for inferring new facts, the issue of cleaning up of noise in KGs through KG refinement task is not as actively studied. Most successful techniques for KG refinement make use of inference rules and reasoning over ontologies. Barring a few exceptions, embeddings do not make use of ontological information, and their performance in KG refinement task is not well understood. In this paper, we present a KG refinement framework called IterefinE which iteratively combines the two techniques - one which uses ontological information and inferences rules, PSL-KGI, and the KG embeddings such as ComplEx and ConvE which do not. As a result, IterefinE is able to exploit not only the ontological information to improve the quality of predictions, but also the power of KG embeddings which (implicitly) perform longer chains of reasoning. The IterefinE framework, operates in a co-training mode and results in explicit type-supervised embedding of the refined KG from PSL-KGI which we call as TypeE-X. Our experiments over a range of KG benchmarks show that the embeddings that we produce are able to reject noisy facts from KG and at the same time infer higher quality new facts resulting in up to 9% improvement of overall weighted F1 score

The significant advances in autonomous systems together with an immensely wider application domain have increased the need for trustable intelligent systems. Explainable artificial intelligence is gaining considerable attention among researchers and developers to address this requirement. Although there is an increasing number of works on interpretable and transparent machine learning algorithms, they are mostly intended for the technical users. Explanations for the end-user have been neglected in many usable and practical applications. In this work, we present the Contextual Importance (CI) and Contextual Utility (CU) concepts to extract explanations that are easily understandable by experts as well as novice users. This method explains the prediction results without transforming the model into an interpretable one. We present an example of providing explanations for linear and non-linear models to demonstrate the generalizability of the method. CI and CU are numerical values that can be represented to the user in visuals and natural language form to justify actions and explain reasoning for individual instances, situations, and contexts. We show the utility of explanations in car selection example and Iris flower classification by presenting complete (i.e. the causes of an individual prediction) and contrastive explanation (i.e. contrasting instance against the instance of interest). The experimental results show the feasibility and validity of the provided explanation methods.