- From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 06:41:26 -0800
- To: Adam <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
- Cc: public-aikr@w3.org, semantic-web@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <CABbsESemAY3uEKZMuzRv=tucqmmwhEm8Hzc9DxTMDX+qoi53=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Adam & All, You may be interested in the way explanations are generated in the platform online at the site below. First is a headline. Clicking on that gets the first layer of detail. Clicking on that....well, you see the idea. This is done in a subject-independent way, by analyzing the underlying call graph. Cheers, -- Adrian Adrian Walker Executable English LLC San Jose, CA, USA 860 830 2085 https://www.executable-english.com On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:47 PM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote: > Paola Di Maio, > > > > When considering explanations of artificial intelligence systems’ > behaviors or outputs or when considering arguments that artificial > intelligence systems’ behaviors or outputs are correct or the best > possible, we can consider diagrammatic, recursive, component-based > approaches to the design and representation of models and systems (e.g. > Lobe). For such approaches, we can consider simple components, > interconnections between components, and composite components which are > comprised of interconnected subcomponents. For such approaches, we can also > consider that components can have settings, that components can be > configurable. > > > > As we consider recursive representations, a question is which level of > abstraction should one use when generating an explanation – when composite > components can be double-clicked upon to reveal yet more interconnected > components? Which composite components should one utilize in an explanation > or argument and which should be zoomed in upon and to which level of > detail? We can generalize with respect to generating explanations and > arguments from recursive models of: (1) mathematical proofs, (2) computer > programs, and (3) component-based systems. We can consider a number of > topics for all three cases: explanation planning, context modeling, task > modeling, user modeling, cognitive load modeling, attention modeling, > relevance modeling and adaptive explanation. > > > > Another topic important to XAI is that some components are trained on > data, that the behavior of some components, simple or composite, is > dependent upon training data, training procedures or experiences in > environments. Brainstorming, we can consider that components or systems can > produce data, e.g. event logs, when training or forming experiences in > environments, such that the produced data can be of use to generating > explanations and arguments for artificial intelligence systems’ behaviors > or outputs. Pertinent topics include contextual summarization and narrative. > > > > XAI topics are interesting; I’m enjoying the discussion. I hope that these > theoretical topics can be of some use to developing new standards. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Adam > > > > > > Schiller, Marvin, and Christoph Benzmüller. "Presenting proofs with > adapted granularity." In Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. > 289-297. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. > > > > Cheong, Yun-Gyung, and Robert Michael Young. "A Framework for Summarizing > Game Experiences as Narratives." In AIIDE, pp. 106-108. 2006. > > > > *From: *Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Monday, November 12, 2018 9:59 PM > *Cc: *public-aikr@w3.org; semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org> > *Subject: *Re: Toward a web standard for XAI? > > > > Dear Adam > > thanks and sorry for taking time to reply. > > Indeed triggered some thinking > > In the process of doing so,irealised whatever we come up with has to match > the web stack, and then realised that we do not have a stack for the > distributed web yet, as such > > Is this what you are thinking, Adam Sobieski, please share more > > sounds like in the right direction > > PDM > > > > > > > > Artificial intelligence and machine learning systems could produce > explanation and/or argumentation [1]. > > > > Deep learning models can be assembled by interconnecting components > [2][3]. Sets of interconnected components can become interconnectable > composite components. XAI [4] approaches should work for deep learning > models assembled by interconnecting components. We can envision > explanations and arguments, or generators for such, forming as deep > learning models are assembled from components. > > > > What do you think about XAI and deep learning models assembled by > interconnecting components? > > > > > > Best regards, > > Adam Sobieski > > http://www.phoster.com/contents/ > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/ > > [2] https://www.lobe.ai/ > > [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN69suHxS8w > > [4] https://www.darpa.mil/program/explainable-artificial-intelligence > > > > *From: *Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:31 AM > *To: *public-aikr@w3.org; semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org> > *Subject: *Toward a web standard for XAI? > > > > > Just wondering > > > https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/2018/10/31/towards-a-web-standard-for-explainable-ai/ > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2018 14:42:04 UTC