Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Francesca Toni

Publications and source records attributed to Francesca Toni.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
arXiv2023

Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deception

Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems. We focus on the problem that agents might deceive in order to achieve their goals (for instance, in our experiments with language models, the goal of being evaluated as truthful). There are a number of existing definitions of deception in the literature on game theory and symbolic AI, but there is no overarching theory of deception for learning agents in games. We introduce a formal definition of deception in structural causal games, grounded in the philosophy literature, and applicable to real-world machine learning systems. Several examples and results illustrate that our formal definition aligns with the philosophical and commonsense meaning of deception. Our main technical result is to provide graphical criteria for deception. We show, experimentally, that these results can be used to mitigate deception in reinforcement learning agents and language models.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Technical Report on the Learning of Case Relevance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation

Case-based reasoning is known to play an important role in several legal settings. In this paper we focus on a recent approach to case-based reasoning, supported by an instantiation of abstract argumentation whereby arguments represent cases and attack between arguments results from outcome disagreement between cases and a notion of relevance. In this context, relevance is connected to a form of specificity among cases. We explore how relevance can be learnt automatically in practice with the help of decision trees, and explore the combination of case-based reasoning with abstract argumentation (AA-CBR) and learning of case relevance for prediction in legal settings. Specifically, we show that, for two legal datasets, AA-CBR and decision-tree-based learning of case relevance perform competitively in comparison with decision trees. We also show that AA-CBR with decision-tree-based learning of case relevance results in a more compact representation than their decision tree counterparts, which could be beneficial for obtaining cognitively tractable explanations.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Black-Box Analysis: GPTs Across Time in Legal Textual Entailment Task

The evolution of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models has led to significant advancements in various natural language processing applications, particularly in legal textual entailment. We present an analysis of GPT-3.5 (ChatGPT) and GPT-4 performances on COLIEE Task 4 dataset, a prominent benchmark in this domain. The study encompasses data from Heisei 18 (2006) to Reiwa 3 (2021), exploring the models' abilities to discern entailment relationships within Japanese statute law across different periods. Our preliminary experimental results unveil intriguing insights into the models' strengths and weaknesses in handling legal textual entailment tasks, as well as the patterns observed in model performance. In the context of proprietary models with undisclosed architectures and weights, black-box analysis becomes crucial for evaluating their capabilities. We discuss the influence of training data distribution and the implications on the models' generalizability. This analysis serves as a foundation for future research, aiming to optimize GPT-based models and enable their successful adoption in legal information extraction and entailment applications.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2023

ABA Learning via ASP

Recently, ABA Learning has been proposed as a form of symbolic machine learning for drawing Assumption-Based Argumentation frameworks from background knowledge and positive and negative examples. We propose a novel method for implementing ABA Learning using Answer Set Programming as a way to help guide Rote Learning and generalisation in ABA Learning.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Understanding ProbLog as Probabilistic Argumentation

ProbLog is a popular probabilistic logic programming language/tool, widely used for applications requiring to deal with inherent uncertainties in structured domains. In this paper we study connections between ProbLog and a variant of another well-known formalism combining symbolic reasoning and reasoning under uncertainty, i.e. probabilistic argumentation. Specifically, we show that ProbLog is an instance of a form of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation (PAA) that builds upon Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA). The connections pave the way towards equipping ProbLog with alternative semantics, inherited from PAA/PABA, as well as obtaining novel argumentation semantics for PAA/PABA, leveraging on prior connections between ProbLog and argumentation. Further, the connections pave the way towards novel forms of argumentative explanations for ProbLog's outputs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Proceedings 39th International Conference on Logic Programming

This volume contains the Technical Communications presented at the 39th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2023), held at Imperial College London, UK from July 9 to July 15, 2023. Technical Communications included here concern the Main Track, the Doctoral Consortium, the Application and Systems/Demo track, the Recently Published Research Track, the Birds-of-a-Feather track, the Thematic Tracks on Logic Programming and Machine Learning, and Logic Programming and Explainability, Ethics, and Trustworthiness.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)

Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of research on qualitatively explaining the reasoning outcomes of AFs with debates/disputes/dialogues in the spirit of extension-based semantics, explaining the quantitative reasoning outcomes of AFs under gradual semantics has not received much attention, despite widespread use in applications. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap by proposing a novel theory of Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning in the context of Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs): whereas feature attribution is used to determine the influence of features towards outputs of machine learning models, AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting. To demonstrate the applicability of our AAEs in practice, we conclude by carrying out two case studies in the scenarios of fake news detection and movie recommender systems.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Causal Discovery and Knowledge Injection for Contestable Neural Networks (with Appendices)

Neural networks have proven to be effective at solving machine learning tasks but it is unclear whether they learn any relevant causal relationships, while their black-box nature makes it difficult for modellers to understand and debug them. We propose a novel method overcoming these issues by allowing a two-way interaction whereby neural-network-empowered machines can expose the underpinning learnt causal graphs and humans can contest the machines by modifying the causal graphs before re-injecting them into the machines. The learnt models are guaranteed to conform to the graphs and adhere to expert knowledge, some of which can also be given up-front. By building a window into the model behaviour and enabling knowledge injection, our method allows practitioners to debug networks based on the causal structure discovered from the data and underpinning the predictions. Experiments with real and synthetic tabular data show that our method improves predictive performance up to 2.4x while producing parsimonious networks, up to 7x smaller in the input layer, compared to SOTA regularised networks.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2023

SpArX: Sparse Argumentative Explanations for Neural Networks [Technical Report]

Neural networks (NNs) have various applications in AI, but explaining their decisions remains challenging. Existing approaches often focus on explaining how changing individual inputs affects NNs' outputs. However, an explanation that is consistent with the input-output behaviour of an NN is not necessarily faithful to the actual mechanics thereof. In this paper, we exploit relationships between multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and quantitative argumentation frameworks (QAFs) to create argumentative explanations for the mechanics of MLPs. Our SpArX method first sparsifies the MLP while maintaining as much of the original structure as possible. It then translates the sparse MLP into an equivalent QAF to shed light on the underlying decision process of the MLP, producing global and/or local explanations. We demonstrate experimentally that SpArX can give more faithful explanations than existing approaches, while simultaneously providing deeper insights into the actual reasoning process of MLPs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

How well do SOTA legal reasoning models support abductive reasoning?

We examine how well the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models used in legal reasoning support abductive reasoning tasks. Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference in which a hypothesis is formulated from a set of observations, and that hypothesis is used to explain the observations. The ability to formulate such hypotheses is important for lawyers and legal scholars as it helps them articulate logical arguments, interpret laws, and develop legal theories. Our motivation is to consider the belief that deep learning models, especially large language models (LLMs), will soon replace lawyers because they perform well on tasks related to legal text processing. But to do so, we believe, requires some form of abductive hypothesis formation. In other words, while LLMs become more popular and powerful, we want to investigate their capacity for abductive reasoning. To pursue this goal, we start by building a logic-augmented dataset for abductive reasoning with 498,697 samples and then use it to evaluate the performance of a SOTA model in the legal field. Our experimental results show that although these models can perform well on tasks related to some aspects of legal text processing, they still fall short in supporting abductive reasoning tasks.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2023

Beyond Logic Programming for Legal Reasoning

Logic programming has long being advocated for legal reasoning, and several approaches have been put forward relying upon explicit representation of the law in logic programming terms. In this position paper we focus on the PROLEG logic-programming-based framework for formalizing and reasoning with Japanese presupposed ultimate fact theory. Specifically, we examine challenges and opportunities in leveraging deep learning techniques for improving legal reasoning using PROLEG identifying four distinct options ranging from enhancing fact extraction using deep learning to end-to-end solutions for reasoning with textual legal descriptions. We assess advantages and limitations of each option, considering their technical feasibility, interpretability, and alignment with the needs of legal practitioners and decision-makers. We believe that our analysis can serve as a guideline for developers aiming to build effective decision-support systems for the legal domain, while fostering a deeper understanding of challenges and potential advancements by neuro-symbolic approaches in legal applications.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2023

A negation detection assessment of GPTs: analysis with the xNot360 dataset

Negation is a fundamental aspect of natural language, playing a critical role in communication and comprehension. Our study assesses the negation detection performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models, specifically GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We focus on the identification of negation in natural language using a zero-shot prediction approach applied to our custom xNot360 dataset. Our approach examines sentence pairs labeled to indicate whether the second sentence negates the first. Our findings expose a considerable performance disparity among the GPT models, with GPT-4 surpassing its counterparts and GPT-3.5 displaying a marked performance reduction. The overall proficiency of the GPT models in negation detection remains relatively modest, indicating that this task pushes the boundaries of their natural language understanding capabilities. We not only highlight the constraints of GPT models in handling negation but also emphasize the importance of logical reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, science, and law.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2023

Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges

As the field of explainable AI (XAI) is maturing, calls for interactive explanations for (the outputs of) AI models are growing, but the state-of-the-art predominantly focuses on static explanations. In this paper, we focus instead on interactive explanations framed as conflict resolution between agents (i.e. AI models and/or humans) by leveraging on computational argumentation. Specifically, we define Argumentative eXchanges (AXs) for dynamically sharing, in multi-agent systems, information harboured in individual agents' quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks towards resolving conflicts amongst the agents. We then deploy AXs in the XAI setting in which a machine and a human interact about the machine's predictions. We identify and assess several theoretical properties characterising AXs that are suitable for XAI. Finally, we instantiate AXs for XAI by defining various agent behaviours, e.g. capturing counterfactual patterns of reasoning in machines and highlighting the effects of cognitive biases in humans. We show experimentally (in a simulated environment) the comparative advantages of these behaviours in terms of conflict resolution, and show that the strongest argument may not always be the most effective.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Learning Assumption-based Argumentation Frameworks

We propose a novel approach to logic-based learning which generates assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks from positive and negative examples, using a given background knowledge. These ABA frameworks can be mapped onto logic programs with negation as failure that may be non-stratified. Whereas existing argumentation-based methods learn exceptions to general rules by interpreting the exceptions as rebuttal attacks, our approach interprets them as undercutting attacks. Our learning technique is based on the use of transformation rules, including some adapted from logic program transformation rules (notably folding) as well as others, such as rote learning and assumption introduction. We present a general strategy that applies the transformation rules in a suitable order to learn stratified frameworks, and we also propose a variant that handles the non-stratified case. We illustrate the benefits of our approach with a number of examples, which show that, on one hand, we are able to easily reconstruct other logic-based learning approaches and, on the other hand, we can work out in a very simple and natural way problems that seem to be hard for existing techniques.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Explaining Image Classification with Visual Debates

An effective way to obtain different perspectives on any given topic is by conducting a debate, where participants argue for and against the topic. Here, we propose a novel debate framework for understanding and explaining a continuous image classifier's reasoning for making a particular prediction by modeling it as a multiplayer sequential zero-sum debate game. The contrastive nature of our framework encourages players to learn to put forward diverse arguments during the debates, picking up the reasoning trails missed by their opponents and highlighting any uncertainties in the classifier. Specifically, in our proposed setup, players propose arguments, drawn from the classifier's discretized latent knowledge, to support or oppose the classifier's decision. The resulting Visual Debates collect supporting and opposing features from the discretized latent space of the classifier, serving as explanations for the internal reasoning of the classifier towards its predictions. We demonstrate and evaluate (a practical realization of) our Visual Debates on the geometric SHAPE and MNIST datasets and on the high-resolution animal faces (AFHQ) dataset, along standard evaluation metrics for explanations (i.e. faithfulness and completeness) and novel, bespoke metrics for visual debates as explanations (consensus and split ratio).

cs.CV↗
arXiv2022

Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks

The use of counterfactual explanations (CFXs) is an increasingly popular explanation strategy for machine learning models. However, recent studies have shown that these explanations may not be robust to changes in the underlying model (e.g., following retraining), which raises questions about their reliability in real-world applications. Existing attempts towards solving this problem are heuristic, and the robustness to model changes of the resulting CFXs is evaluated with only a small number of retrained models, failing to provide exhaustive guarantees. To remedy this, we propose Δ-robustness, the first notion to formally and deterministically assess the robustness (to model changes) of CFXs for neural networks. We introduce an abstraction framework based on interval neural networks to verify the Δ-robustness of CFXs against a possibly infinite set of changes to the model parameters, i.e., weights and biases. We then demonstrate the utility of this approach in two distinct ways. First, we analyse the Δ-robustness of a number of CFX generation methods from the literature and show that they unanimously host significant deficiencies in this regard. Second, we demonstrate how embedding Δ-robustness within existing methods can provide CFXs which are provably robust.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2022

Explaining Random Forests using Bipolar Argumentation and Markov Networks (Technical Report)

Random forests are decision tree ensembles that can be used to solve a variety of machine learning problems. However, as the number of trees and their individual size can be large, their decision making process is often incomprehensible. In order to reason about the decision process, we propose representing it as an argumentation problem. We generalize sufficient and necessary argumentative explanations using a Markov network encoding, discuss the relevance of these explanations and establish relationships to families of abductive explanations from the literature. As the complexity of the explanation problems is high, we discuss a probabilistic approximation algorithm and present first experimental results.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2022

Argumentative Reward Learning: Reasoning About Human Preferences

We define a novel neuro-symbolic framework, argumentative reward learning, which combines preference-based argumentation with existing approaches to reinforcement learning from human feedback. Our method improves prior work by generalising human preferences, reducing the burden on the user and increasing the robustness of the reward model. We demonstrate this with a number of experiments.

cs.AI↗