Total: 9
Actions description languages (ADLs), such as STRIPS, PDDL, and RDDL specify the input format for planning algorithms. Unfortunately, their syntax is familiar to planning experts only, and not to potential users of planning technology. Moreover, this syntax limits the ability to describe complex and large domains. We argue that programming languages (PLs), and more specifically, probabilistic programming languages (PPLs), provide a more suitable alternative. PLs are familiar to all programmers, support complex data types and rich libraries for their manipulation, and have powerful constructs, such as loops, sub-routines, and local variables with which complex, realistic models and complex objectives can be simply and naturally specified. PPLs, specifically, make it easy to specify distributions, which is essential for stochastic models. The natural objection to this proposal is that PLs are opaque and too expressive, making reasoning about them difficult. However, PPLs also come with efficient inference algorithms, which, coupled with a growing body of work on sampling-based and gradient-based planning, imply that planning and execution monitoring can be carried out efficiently in practice. In this paper, we expand on this proposal, illustrating its potential with examples.
AI systems can interact in unexpected ways, sometimes with disastrous consequences. As AI gets to control more of our world, these interactions will become more common and have higher stakes. As AI becomes more advanced, these interactions will become more sophisticated, and game theory will provide the tools for analyzing these interactions. However, AI agents are in some ways unlike the agents traditionally studied in game theory, introducing new challenges as well as opportunities. We propose a research agenda to develop the game theory of highly advanced AI agents, with a focus on achieving cooperation.
Propaganda campaigns have long been used to influence public opinion via disseminating biased and/or misleading information. Despite the increasing prevalence of propaganda content on the Internet, few attempts have been made by AI researchers to analyze such content. We introduce the task of multimodal propaganda processing, where the goal is to automatically analyze propaganda content. We believe that this task presents a long-term challenge to AI researchers and that successful processing of propaganda could bring machine understanding one important step closer to human understanding. We discuss the technical challenges associated with this task and outline the steps that need to be taken to address it.
Foundation models (FMs) are achieving remarkable successes to realize complex downstream tasks in domains including natural language and visions. In this paper, we propose building an FM for material science, which is trained with massive data across a wide variety of material domains and data modalities. Nowadays machine learning models play key roles in material discovery, particularly for property prediction and structure generation. However, those models have been independently developed to address only specific tasks without sharing more global knowledge. Development of an FM for material science will enable overarching modeling across material domains and data modalities by sharing their feature representations. We discuss fundamental challenges and required technologies to build an FM from the aspects of data preparation, model development, and downstream tasks.
We propose a new knowledge representation (KR) based on knowledge bases (KBs) derived from text, based on question generation and entity linking. We argue that the proposed type of KB has many of the key advantages of a traditional symbolic KB: in particular, it consists of small modular components, which can be combined compositionally to answer complex queries, including relational queries and queries involving ``multi-hop'' inferences. However, unlike a traditional KB, this information store is well-aligned with common user information needs. We present one such KB, called a QEDB, and give qualitative evidence that the atomic components are high-quality and meaningful, and that atomic components can be combined in ways similar to the triples in a symbolic KB. We also show experimentally that questions reflective of typical user questions are more easily answered with a QEDB than a symbolic KB.
The use of virtual agents (bots) has become essential for providing online assistance to customers. However, even though a lot of effort has been dedicated to the research, development, and deployment of such virtual agents, customers are frequently frustrated with the interaction with the virtual agent and require a human instead. We suggest that a holistic approach, combining virtual agents and human operators working together, is the path to providing satisfactory service. However, implementing such a holistic customer service system will not, and cannot, be achieved using any single AI technology or branch. Rather, such a system will inevitably require the integration of multiple and diverse AI technologies, including natural language processing, multi-agent systems, machine learning, reinforcement learning, and behavioral cloning; in addition to integration with other disciplines such as psychology, business, sociology, economics, operation research, informatics, computer-human interaction, and more. As such, we believe this customer service application offers a rich domain for experimentation and application of multidisciplinary AI. In this paper, we introduce the holistic customer service application and discuss the key AI technologies and disciplines required for a successful AI solution for this setting. For each of these AI technologies, we outline the key scientific questions and research avenues stemming from this setting. We demonstrate that integrating technologies from different fields can lead to a cost-effective successful customer service center. The challenge is that there is a need for several communities, each with its own language and modeling techniques, different problem-solving methods, and different evaluation methodologies, all of which need to work together. Real cooperation will require the formation of joint methodologies and techniques that could improve the service to customers, but, more importantly, open new directions in cooperation of diverse communities toward solving joint difficult tasks.
Adversarial machine learning (AML) research is concerned with robustness of machine learning models and algorithms to malicious tampering. Originating at the intersection between machine learning and cybersecurity, AML has come to have broader research appeal, stretching traditional notions of security to include applications of computer vision, natural language processing, and network science. In addition, the problems of strategic classification, algorithmic recourse, and counterfactual explanations have essentially the same core mathematical structure as AML, despite distinct motivations. I give a simplified overview of the central problems in AML, and then discuss both the security-motivated AML domains, and the problems above unrelated to security. These together span a number of important AI subdisciplines, but can all broadly be viewed as concerned with trustworthy AI. My goal is to clarify both the technical connections among these, as well as the substantive differences, suggesting directions for future research.
Adversarial robustness studies the worst-case performance of a machine learning model to ensure safety and reliability. With the proliferation of deep-learning-based technology, the potential risks associated with model development and deployment can be amplified and become dreadful vulnerabilities. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of research topics and foundational principles of research methods for adversarial robustness of deep learning models, including attacks, defenses, verification, and novel applications.
There is a fast-growing literature in addressing the fairness of AI models (fair-AI), with a continuous stream of new conceptual frameworks, methods, and tools. How much can we trust them? How much do they actually impact society? We take a critical focus on fair-AI and survey issues, simplifications, and mistakes that researchers and practitioners often underestimate, which in turn can undermine the trust on fair-AI and limit its contribution to society. In particular, we discuss the hyper-focus on fairness metrics and on optimizing their average performances. We instantiate this observation by discussing the Yule's effect of fair-AI tools: being fair on average does not imply being fair in contexts that matter. We conclude that the use of fair-AI methods should be complemented with the design, development, and verification practices that are commonly summarized under the umbrella of trustworthy AI.