How to construct an interpretable autonomous driving decision-making system has become a focal point in academic research. In this study, we propose a novel approach that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate executable, rule-based decision systems to address this challenge. Specifically, harnessing the strong reasoning and programming capabilities of LLMs, we introduce the ADRD(LLM-Driven Autonomous Driving Based on Rule-based Decision Systems) framework, which integrates three core modules: the Information Module, the Agents Module, and the Testing Module. The framework operates by first aggregating contextual driving scenario information through the Information Module, then utilizing the Agents Module to generate rule-based driving tactics. These tactics are iteratively refined through continuous interaction with the Testing Module. Extensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that ADRD exhibits superior performance in autonomous driving decision tasks. Compared to traditional reinforcement learning approaches and the most advanced LLM-based methods, ADRD shows significant advantages in terms of interpretability, response speed, and driving performance. These results highlight the framework's ability to achieve comprehensive and accurate understanding of complex driving scenarios, and underscore the promising future of transparent, rule-based decision systems that are easily modifiable and broadly applicable. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that integrates large language models with rule-based systems for autonomous driving decision-making, and our findings validate its potential for real-world deployment.

Just as AI begins to upend American society, Congress is considering a move that would sideline states from enforcing commonsense safeguards. Tucked into the recently passed House reconciliation package is Section 43201, a provision that would pre-empt nearly all state and local laws governing "artificial intelligence models," "artificial intelligence systems," and "automated decision systems" for the next 10 years. Last night, the Senate released its own version of the moratorium that would restrict states from receiving federal funding for broadband infrastructure if they don't fall in line. Supporters argue that a moratorium is needed to avoid a patchwork of state rules that could jeopardize U.S. AI competitiveness. AI'S DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR AMERICA – AND IT ALL HINGES ON THESE FREEDOMS But this sweeping approach threatens to override legitimate state efforts to curb Big Tech's worst abuses--with no federal safeguards to replace them. It also risks undermining the constitutional role of state legislatures to protect the interests and rights of American children and working families amid AI's far-reaching social and economic disruptions.

Long-term fairness is an important factor of consideration in designing and deploying learning-based decision systems in high-stake decision-making contexts. Recent work has proposed the use of Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) to formulate decision-making with long-term fairness requirements in dynamically changing environments, and demonstrated major challenges in directly deploying heuristic and rule-based policies that worked well in static environments. We show that policy optimization methods from deep reinforcement learning can be used to find strictly better decision policies that can often achieve both higher overall utility and less violation of the fairness requirements, compared to previously-known strategies. In particular, we propose new methods for imposing fairness requirements in policy optimization by regularizing the advantage evaluation of different actions. Our proposed methods make it easy to impose fairness constraints without reward engineering or sacrificing training efficiency.

Given a raw knowledge in the form of a data table/a decision system, one is facing two possible venues. One, to treat the system as closed, i.e., its universe does not admit new objects, or, to the contrary, its universe is open on admittance of new objects. In particular, one may obtain new objects whose sets of values of features are new to the system. In this case the problem is to assign a decision value to any such new object. This problem is somehow resolved in the rough set theory, e.g., on the basis of similarity of the value set of a new object to value sets of objects already assigned a decision value. It is crucial for online learning when each new object must have a predicted decision value.\ There is a vast literature on various methods for decision prediction for new yet unseen object. The approach we propose is founded in the theory of rough mereology and it requires a theory of sets/concepts, and, we root our theory in classical set theory of Syllogistic within which we recall the theory of parts known as Mereology. Then, we recall our theory of Rough Mereology along with the theory of weight assignment to the Tarski algebra of Mereology.\ This allows us to introduce the notion of a part to a degree. Once we have defined basics of Mereology and rough Mereology, we recall our theory of weight assignment to elements of the Boolean algebra within Mereology and this allows us to define the relation of parts to the degree and we apply this notion in a procedure to select a decision for new yet unseen objects.\ In selecting a plausible candidate which would pass its decision value to the new object, we employ the notion of Vapnik - Chervonenkis dimension in order to select at the first stage the candidate with the largest VC-dimension of the family of its $\varepsilon$-components for some choice of $\varepsilon$.

This paper introduces a novel Choquet distance using fuzzy rough set based measures. The proposed distance measure combines the attribute information received from fuzzy rough set theory with the flexibility of the Choquet integral. This approach is designed to adeptly capture non-linear relationships within the data, acknowledging the interplay of the conditional attributes towards the decision attribute and resulting in a more flexible and accurate distance. We explore its application in the context of machine learning, with a specific emphasis on distance-based classification approaches (e.g. k-nearest neighbours). The paper examines two fuzzy rough set based measures that are based on the positive region. Moreover, we explore two procedures for monotonizing the measures derived from fuzzy rough set theory, making them suitable for use with the Choquet integral, and investigate their differences.

Accountable use of AI systems in high-stakes settings relies on making systems contestable. In this paper we study efforts to contest AI systems in practice by studying how public defenders scrutinize AI in court. We present findings from interviews with 17 people in the U.S. public defense community to understand their perceptions of and experiences scrutinizing computational forensic software (CFS) -- automated decision systems that the government uses to convict and incarcerate, such as facial recognition, gunshot detection, and probabilistic genotyping tools. We find that our participants faced challenges assessing and contesting CFS reliability due to difficulties (a) navigating how CFS is developed and used, (b) overcoming judges and jurors' non-critical perceptions of CFS, and (c) gathering CFS expertise. To conclude, we provide recommendations that center the technical, social, and institutional context to better position interventions such as performance evaluations to support contestability in practice.

Interpretability is the next frontier in machine learning research. In the search for white box models - as opposed to black box models, like random forests or neural networks - rule induction algorithms are a logical and promising option, since the rules can easily be understood by humans. Fuzzy and rough set theory have been successfully applied to this archetype, almost always separately. As both approaches to rule induction involve granular computing based on the concept of equivalence classes, it is natural to combine them. The QuickRules\cite{JensenCornelis2009} algorithm was a first attempt at using fuzzy rough set theory for rule induction. It is based on QuickReduct, a greedy algorithm for building decision reducts. QuickRules already showed an improvement over other rule induction methods. However, to evaluate the full potential of a fuzzy rough rule induction algorithm, one needs to start from the foundations. In this paper, we introduce a novel rule induction algorithm called Fuzzy Rough Rule Induction (FRRI). We provide background and explain the workings of our algorithm. Furthermore, we perform a computational experiment to evaluate the performance of our algorithm and compare it to other state-of-the-art rule induction approaches. We find that our algorithm is more accurate while creating small rulesets consisting of relatively short rules. We end the paper by outlining some directions for future work.

The proliferation of fake news has emerged as a severe societal problem, raising significant interest from industry and academia. While existing deep-learning based methods have made progress in detecting fake news accurately, their reliability may be compromised caused by the non-transparent reasoning processes, poor generalization abilities and inherent risks of integration with large language models (LLMs). To address this challenge, we propose {\methodname}, a novel framework for trustworthy fake news detection that prioritizes explainability, generalizability and controllability of models. This is achieved via a dual-system framework that integrates cognition and decision systems, adhering to the principles above. The cognition system harnesses human expertise to generate logical predicates, which guide LLMs in generating human-readable logic atoms. Meanwhile, the decision system deduces generalizable logic rules to aggregate these atoms, enabling the identification of the truthfulness of the input news across diverse domains and enhancing transparency in the decision-making process. Finally, we present comprehensive evaluation results on four datasets, demonstrating the feasibility and trustworthiness of our proposed framework. Our implementation is available at \url{https://github.com/less-and-less-bugs/Trust_TELLER}.

An increasingly important building block of large scale machine learning systems is based on returning slates; an ordered lists of items given a query. Applications of this technology include: search, information retrieval and recommender systems. When the action space is large, decision systems are restricted to a particular structure to complete online queries quickly. This paper addresses the optimization of these large scale decision systems given an arbitrary reward function. We cast this learning problem in a policy optimization framework and propose a new class of policies, born from a novel relaxation of decision functions. This results in a simple, yet efficient learning algorithm that scales to massive action spaces. We compare our method to the commonly adopted Plackett-Luce policy class and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on problems with action space sizes in the order of millions.

An implicit ambiguity in the field of prediction-based decision-making regards the relation between the concepts of prediction and decision. Much of the literature in the field tends to blur the boundaries between the two concepts and often simply speaks of 'fair prediction.' In this paper, we point out that a differentiation of these concepts is helpful when implementing algorithmic fairness. Even if fairness properties are related to the features of the used prediction model, what is more properly called 'fair' or 'unfair' is a decision system, not a prediction model. This is because fairness is about the consequences on human lives, created by a decision, not by a prediction. We clarify the distinction between the concepts of prediction and decision and show the different ways in which these two elements influence the final fairness properties of a prediction-based decision system. In addition to exploring this relationship conceptually and practically, we propose a framework that enables a better understanding and reasoning of the conceptual logic of creating fairness in prediction-based decision-making. In our framework, we specify different roles, namely the 'prediction-modeler' and the 'decision-maker,' and the information required from each of them for being able to implement fairness of the system. Our framework allows for deriving distinct responsibilities for both roles and discussing some insights related to ethical and legal requirements. Our contribution is twofold. First, we shift the focus from abstract algorithmic fairness to context-dependent decision-making, recognizing diverse actors with unique objectives and independent actions. Second, we provide a conceptual framework that can help structure prediction-based decision problems with respect to fairness issues, identify responsibilities, and implement fairness governance mechanisms in real-world scenarios.