7 results for “Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence”. Showing 7 of 39,449.
A Coverage-Based Utility Model for Identifying Unknown Unknowns
A classifier’s low confidence in prediction is often indicative of whether its prediction will be wrong; in this case, inputs are called known unknowns. In contrast, unknown unknowns (UUs) are inputs on which a classifier makes a high confidence mistake. Identifying UUs is especially important in safety-critical domains like medicine (diagnosis) and law (recidivism prediction). Previous work by Lakkaraju et al. (2017) on identifying unknown unknowns assumes that the utility of each revealed UU is independent of the others, rather than considering the set holistically. While this assumption yields an efficient discovery algorithm, we argue that it produces an incomplete understanding of the classifier’s limitations. In response, this paper proposes a new class of utility models that rewards how well the discovered UUs cover (or "explain") a sample distribution of expected queries. Although choosing an optimal cover is intractable, even if the UUs were known, our utility model is monotone submodular, affording a greedy discovery strategy. Experimental results on four datasets show that our method outperforms bandit-based approaches and achieves within 60.9% utility of an omniscient, tractable upper bound.
A Search Engine for Discovery of Scientific Challenges and Directions
Keeping track of scientific challenges, advances and emerging directions is a fundamental part of research. However, researchers face a flood of papers that hinders discovery of important knowledge. In biomedicine, this directly impacts human lives. To address this problem, we present a novel task of extraction and search of scientific challenges and directions, to facilitate rapid knowledge discovery. We construct and release an expert-annotated corpus of texts sampled from full-length papers, labeled with novel semantic categories that generalize across many types of challenges and directions. We focus on a large corpus of interdisciplinary work relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from biomedicine to areas such as AI and economics. We apply a model trained on our data to identify challenges and directions across the corpus and build a dedicated search engine. In experiments with 19 researchers and clinicians using our system, we outperform a popular scientific search engine in assisting knowledge discovery. Finally, we show that models trained on our resource generalize to the wider biomedical domain and to AI papers, highlighting its broad utility. We make our data, model and search engine publicly available.
Fine-Grained Entity Recognition
Entity Recognition (ER) is a key component of relation extraction systems and many other natural-language processing applications. Unfortunately, most ER systems are restricted to produce labels from to a small set of entity classes, e.g., person, organization, location or miscellaneous. In order to intelligently understand text and extract a wide range of information, it is useful to more precisely determine the semantic classes of entities mentioned in unstructured text. This paper defines a fine-grained set of 112 tags, formulates the tagging problem as multi-class, multi-label classification, describes an unsupervised method for collecting training data, and presents the FIGER implementation. Experiments show that the system accurately predicts the tags for entities. Moreover, it provides useful information for a relation extraction system, increasing the F1 score by 93%. We make FIGER and its data available as a resource for future work.
Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork
AI practitioners typically strive to develop the most accurate systems, making an implicit assumption that the AI system will function autonomously. However, in practice, AI systems often are used to provide advice to people in domains ranging from criminal justice and finance to healthcare. In such AI-advised decision making, humans and machines form a team, where the human is responsible for making final decisions. But is the most accurate AI the best teammate? We argue "not necessarily" --- predictable performance may be worth a slight sacrifice in AI accuracy. Instead, we argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. To optimize the team performance for this setting we maximize the team's expected utility, expressed in terms of the quality of the final decision, cost of verifying, and individual accuracies of people and machines. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance and show the benefit of modeling teamwork during training through improvements in expected team utility across datasets, considering parameters such as human skill and the cost of mistakes. We discuss the shortcoming of current optimization approaches beyond well-studied loss functions such as log-loss, and encourage future work on AI optimization problems motivated by human-AI collaboration.
QASC: A Dataset for Question Answering via Sentence Composition
Composing knowledge from multiple pieces of texts is a key challenge in multi-hop question answering. We present a multi-hop reasoning dataset, Question Answering via Sentence Composition (QASC), that requires retrieving facts from a large corpus and composing them to answer a multiple-choice question. QASC is the first dataset to offer two desirable properties: (a) the facts to be composed are annotated in a large corpus, and (b) the decomposition into these facts is not evident from the question itself. The latter makes retrieval challenging as the system must introduce new concepts or relations in order to discover potential decompositions. Further, the reasoning model must then learn to identify valid compositions of these retrieved facts using common-sense reasoning. To help address these challenges, we provide annotation for supporting facts as well as their composition. Guided by these annotations, we present a two-step approach to mitigate the retrieval challenges. We use other multiple-choice datasets as additional training data to strengthen the reasoning model. Our proposed approach improves over current state-of-the-art language models by 11% (absolute). The reasoning and retrieval problems, however, remain unsolved as this model still lags by 20% behind human performance.
SixthSense: Fast and Reliable Recognition of Dead Ends in MDPs
The results of the latest International Probabilistic Planning Competition (IPPC-2008) indicate that the presence of dead ends, states with no trajectory to the goal, makes MDPs hard for modern probabilistic planners. Implicit dead ends, states with executable actions but no path to the goal, are particularly challenging; existing MDP solvers spend much time and memory identifying these states. As a first attempt to address this issue, we propose a machine learning algorithm called SIXTHSENSE. SIXTHSENSE helps existing MDP solvers by finding nogoods, conjunctions of literals whose truth in a state implies that the state is a dead end. Importantly, our learned nogoods are sound, and hence the states they identify are true dead ends. SIXTHSENSE is very fast, needs little training data, and takes only a small fraction of total planning time. While IPPC problems may have millions of dead ends, they may typically be represented with only a dozen or two no-goods. Thus, nogood learning efficiently produces a quick and reliable means for dead-end recognition. Our experiments show that the nogoods found by SIXTHSENSE routinely reduce planning space and time on IPPC domains, enabling some planners to solve problems they could not previously handle.
Updates in Human-AI Teams: Understanding and Addressing the Performance/Compatibility Tradeoff
AI systems are being deployed to support human decision making in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and criminal justice. In many cases, the human and AI form a team, in which the human makes decisions after reviewing the AI’s inferences. A successful partnership requires that the human develops insights into the performance of the AI system, including its failures. We study the influence of updates to an AI system in this setting. While updates can increase the AI’s predictive performance, they may also lead to behavioral changes that are at odds with the user’s prior experiences and confidence in the AI’s inferences. We show that updates that increase AI performance may actually hurt team performance. We introduce the notion of the compatibility of an AI update with prior user experience and present methods for studying the role of compatibility in human-AI teams. Empirical results on three high-stakes classification tasks show that current machine learning algorithms do not produce compatible updates. We propose a re-training objective to improve the compatibility of an update by penalizing new errors. The objective offers full leverage of the performance/compatibility tradeoff across different datasets, enabling more compatible yet accurate updates.