If you are looking for an answer to the question What is Artificial Intelligence? and you only have a minute, then here's the definition the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence offers on its home page: "the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines."
However, if you are fortunate enough to have more than a minute, then please get ready to embark upon an exciting journey exploring AI (but beware, it could last a lifetime) …
Boratko, Michael, Padigela, Harshit, Mikkilineni, Divyendra, Yuvraj, Pritish, Das, Rajarshi, McCallum, Andrew, Chang, Maria, Fokoue-Nkoutche, Achille, Kapanipathi, Pavan, Mattei, Nicholas, Musa, Ryan, Talamadupula, Kartik, Witbrock, Michael
The recent work of Clark et al. introduces the AI2 Reasoning Challenge (ARC) and the associated ARC dataset that partitions open domain, complex science questions into an Easy Set and a Challenge Set. That paper includes an analysis of 100 questions with respect to the types of knowledge and reasoning required to answer them; however, it does not include clear definitions of these types, nor does it offer information about the quality of the labels. We propose a comprehensive set of definitions of knowledge and reasoning types necessary for answering the questions in the ARC dataset. Using ten annotators and a sophisticated annotation interface, we analyze the distribution of labels across the Challenge Set and statistics related to them. Additionally, we demonstrate that although naive information retrieval methods return sentences that are irrelevant to answering the query, sufficient supporting text is often present in the (ARC) corpus. Evaluating with human-selected relevant sentences improves the performance of a neural machine comprehension model by 42 points.
We propose a cost-effective framework for preference elicitation and aggregation under Plackett-Luce model with features. Given a budget, our framework iteratively computes the most cost-effective elicitation questions in order to help the agents make better group decisions. We illustrate the viability of the framework with an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which estimates the cost of answering different types of elicitation questions. We compare the prediction accuracy of our framework when adopting various information criteria that evaluate the expected information gain from a question. Our experiments show carefully designed information criteria are much more efficient than randomly asking questions given budget constraint.
If we want AI systems to make decisions, or to support humans in making them, we need to make sure they are aware of the ethical principles that are involved in such decisions, so they can guide towards decisions that are conform to the ethical principles. Complex decisions that we make on a daily basis are based on our own subjective preferences over the possible options. In this respect, the CP-net formalism is a convenient and expressive way to model preferences over decisions with multiple features. However, often the subjective preferences of the decision makers may need to be checked against exogenous priorities such as those provided by ethical principles, feasibility constraints, or safety regulations. Hence, it is essential to have principled ways to evaluate if preferences are compatible with such priorities. To do this, we describe also such priorities via CP-nets and we define a notion of distance between the ordering induced by two CPnets. We also provide tractable approximation algorithms for computing the distance and we define a procedure that uses the distance to check if the preferences are close enough to the ethical principles. We then provide an experimental evaluation showing that the quality of the decision with respect to the subjective preferences does not significantly degrade when conforming to the ethical principles.
We draw on concepts in medical ethics to consider how computer science, and AI in particular, can develop critical tools for thinking concretely about technology's impact on the wellbeing of the people who use it. We focus on patient autonomy---the ability to set the terms of one’s encounter with medicine---and on the mediating concepts of informed consent and decisional capacity, which enable doctors to honor patients' autonomy in messy and non-ideal circumstances. This comparative study is organized around a fictional case study of a heart patient with cardiac implants. Using this case study, we identify points of overlap and of difference between medical ethics and technology ethics, and leverage a discussion of that intertwined scenario to offer initial practical suggestions about how we can adapt the concepts of decisional capacity and informed consent to the discussion of technology design.
We propose a novel mechanism for solving the assignment problem when we have a two sided matching problem with preferences from one side (the agents/reviewers) over the other side (the objects/papers) and both sides have capacity constraints. The assignment problem is a fundamental in both computer science and economics with application in many areas including task and resource allocation. Drawing inspiration from work in multi-criteria decision making and social choice theory we use order weighted averages (OWAs), a parameterized class of mean aggregators, to propose a novel and flexible class of algorithms for the assignment problem. We show an algorithm for finding an SUM-OWA assignment in polynomial time, in contrast to the NP-hardness of finding an egalitarian assignment. We demonstrate through empirical experiments that using SUM-OWA assignments can lead to high quality and more fair assignments.
Peer review, evaluation, and selection is a fundamental aspect of modern science. Funding bodies the world over employ experts to review and select the best proposals of those submitted for funding. The problem of peer selection, however, is much more general: a professional society may want to give a subset of its members awards based on the opinions of all members; an instructor for a MOOC or online course may want to crowdsource grading; or a marketing company may select ideas from group brainstorming sessions based on peer evaluation. We make three fundamental contributions to the study of procedures or mechanisms for peer selection, a specific type of group decision-making problem, studied in computer science, economics, and political science. First, we propose a novel mechanism that is strategyproof, i.e., agents cannot benefit by reporting insincere valuations. Second, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our mechanism by a comprehensive simulation-based comparison with a suite of mechanisms found in the literature. Finally, our mechanism employs a randomized rounding technique that is of independent interest, as it solves the apportionment problem that arises in various settings where discrete resources such as parliamentary representation slots need to be divided proportionally.
Burton, Emanuelle (University of Kentucky) | Goldsmith, Judy (University of Kentucky) | Koenig, Sven (University of Southern California) | Kuipers, Benjamin (University of Michigan) | Mattei, Nicholas (IBM Research) | Walsh, Toby (University of New South Wales and Data61)
Aziz, Haris (Data61 and University of New South Wales) | Lev, Omer (University of Toronto) | Mattei, Nicholas (Data61 and University of New South Wales) | Rosenschein, Jeffrey S. (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) | Walsh, Toby (Data61 and University of New South Wales)
We study an important crowdsourcing setting where agents evaluate one another and, based on these evaluations, a subset of agents are selected. This setting is ubiquitous when peer review is used for distributing awards in a team, allocating funding to scientists, and selecting publications for conferences. The fundamental challenge when applying crowdsourcing in these settings is that agents may misreport their reviews of others to increase their chances of being selected. We propose a new strategyproof (impartial) mechanism called Dollar Partition that satisfies desirable axiomatic properties. We then show, using a detailed experiment with parameter values derived from target real world domains, that our mechanism performs better on average, and in the worst case, than other strategyproof mechanisms in the literature.
Allen, Thomas E. (University of Kentucky) | Goldsmith, Judy (University of Kentucky) | Justice, Hayden Elizabeth (The Gatton Academy, WKU) | Mattei, Nicholas (Data61 and University of New South Wales) | Raines, Kayla (University of Kentucky)
Conditional preference networks (CP-nets) are a commonly studied compact formalism for modeling preferences. To study the properties of CP-nets or the performance of CP-net algorithms on average, one needs to generate CP-nets in an equiprobable manner. We discuss common problems with naive generation, including sampling bias, which invalidates the base assumptions of many statistical tests and can undermine the results of an experimental study. We provide a novel algorithm for provably generating acyclic CP-nets uniformly at random. Our method is computationally efficient and allows for multi-valued domains and arbitrary bounds on the indegree in the dependency graph.
A key front for ethical questions in artificial intelligence, and computer science more generally, is teaching students how to engage with the questions they will face in their professional careers based on the tools and technologies we teach them. In past work (and current teaching) we have advocated for the use of science fiction as an appropriate tool which enables AI researchers to engage students and the public on the current state and potential impacts of AI. We present teaching suggestions for E.M. Forster's 1909 story, "The Machine Stops," to teach topics in computer ethics. In particular, we use the story to examine ethical issues related to being constantly available for remote contact, physically isolated, and dependent on a machine --- all without mentioning computer games or other media to which students have strong emotional associations. We give a high-level view of common ethical theories and indicate how they inform the questions raised by the story and afford a structure for thinking about how to address them.