Compressed file formats are the corner stone of efficient data storage and transmission, yet their potential for representation learning remains largely underexplored. We introduce TEMPEST (TransformErs froM comPressed rEpreSenTations), a method that exploits the inherent byte-stream structure of compressed files to design an effective tokenization and encoding strategy. By leveraging this compact encoding, a standard transformer can directly learn semantic representations from compressed data streams, bypassing the need for raw byte-level processing or full media decoding. Our proposal substantially reduces the number of tokens required for semantic classification, thereby lowering both computational complexity and memory usage. Through extensive experiments across diverse datasets, coding schemes, and modalities, we show that TEMPEST achieves accuracy competitive wit the state-of-the-art while delivering efficiency gains in memory and compute.

Neural network-based Marked Temporal Point Process (MTPP) models have been widely adopted to model event sequences in high-stakes applications, raising concerns about the trustworthiness of outputs from these models. This study focuses on Explanation for MTPP, aiming to identify the minimal and rational explanation, that is, the minimum subset of events in history, based on which the prediction accuracy of MTPP matches that based on full history to a great extent and better than that based on the complement of the subset. This study finds that directly defining Explanation for MTPP as counterfactual explanation or factual explanation can result in irrational explanations. To address this issue, we define Explanation for MTPP as a combination of counterfactual explanation and factual explanation. This study proposes Counterfactual and Factual Explainer for MTPP (CFF) to solve Explanation for MTPP with a series of deliberately designed techniques. Experiments demonstrate the correctness and superiority of CFF over baselines regarding explanation quality and processing efficiency.

In classical AI planning, heuristic functions typically base their estimates on a relaxation of the input task. Such relaxations can be more or less precise, and many heuristic functions have a refinement procedure that can be iteratively applied until the desired degree of precision is reached. Traditionally, such refinement is performed offline to instantiate the heuristic for the search. However, a natural idea is to perform such refinement online instead, in situations where the heuristic is not sufficiently accurate. We introduce several online-refinement search algorithms, based on hill-climbing and greedy best-first search. Our hill-climbing algorithms perform a bounded lookahead, proceeding to a state with lower heuristic value than the root state of the lookahead if such a state exists, or refining the heuristic otherwise to remove such a local minimum from the search space surface. These algorithms are complete if the refinement procedure satisfies a suitable convergence property. We transfer the idea of bounded lookaheads to greedy best-first search with a lightweight lookahead after each expansion, serving both as a method to boost search progress and to detect when the heuristic is inaccurate, identifying an opportunity for online refinement. We evaluate our algorithms with the partial delete relaxation heuristic hCFF, which can be refined by treating additional conjunctions of facts as atomic, and whose refinement operation satisfies the convergence property required for completeness. On both the IPC domains as well as on the recently published Autoscale benchmarks, our online-refinement search algorithms significantly beat state-of-the-art satisficing planners, and are competitive even with complex portfolios.

People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI: they accept an AI's suggestion even when that suggestion is wrong. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance and some studies suggest that it might even increase it. Informed by the dual-process theory of cognition, we posit that people rarely engage analytically with each individual AI recommendation and explanation, and instead develop general heuristics about whether and when to follow the AI suggestions. Building on prior research on medical decision-making, we designed three cognitive forcing interventions to compel people to engage more thoughtfully with the AI-generated explanations. We conducted an experiment (N=199), in which we compared our three cognitive forcing designs to two simple explainable AI approaches and to a no-AI baseline. The results demonstrate that cognitive forcing significantly reduced overreliance compared to the simple explainable AI approaches. However, there was a trade-off: people assigned the least favorable subjective ratings to the designs that reduced the overreliance the most. To audit our work for intervention-generated inequalities, we investigated whether our interventions benefited equally people with different levels of Need for Cognition (i.e., motivation to engage in effortful mental activities). Our results show that, on average, cognitive forcing interventions benefited participants higher in Need for Cognition more. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.

Recent work has shown how to improve delete relaxation heuristics by computing relaxed plans, i.e., the hFF heuristic, in a compiled planning task PiC which represents a given set C of fact conjunctions explicitly. While this compilation view of such partial delete relaxation is simple and elegant, its meaning with respect to the original planning task is opaque, and the size of PiC grows exponentially in |C|. We herein provide a direct characterization, without compilation, making explicit how the approach arises from a combination of the delete-relaxation with critical-path heuristics. Designing equations characterizing a novel view on h+ on the one hand, and a generalized version hC of hm on the other hand, we show that h+(PiC) can be characterized in terms of a combined hcplus equation. This naturally generalizes the standard delete-relaxation framework: understanding that framework as a relaxation over singleton facts as atomic subgoals, one can refine the relaxation by using the conjunctions C as atomic subgoals instead. Thanks to this explicit view, we identify the precise source of complexity in hFF(PiC), namely maximization of sets of supported atomic subgoals during relaxed plan extraction, which is easy for singleton-fact subgoals but is NP-complete in the general case. Approximating that problem greedily, we obtain a polynomial-time hCFF version of hFF(PiC), superseding the PiC compilation, and superseding the modified PiCce compilation which achieves the same complexity reduction but at an information loss. Experiments on IPC benchmarks show that these theoretical advantages can translate into empirical ones.