Imitation Learning Datasets: A Toolkit For Creating Datasets, Training Agents and Benchmarking

Imitation learning field requires expert data to train agents in a task. Most often, this learning approach suffers from the absence of available data, which results in techniques being tested on its dataset. Creating datasets is a cumbersome process requiring researchers to train expert agents from scratch, record their interactions and test each benchmark method with newly created data. Moreover, creating new datasets for each new technique results in a lack of consistency in the evaluation process since each dataset can drastically vary in state and action distribution. In response, this work aims to address these issues by creating Imitation Learning Datasets, a toolkit that allows for: (i) curated expert policies with multithreaded support for faster dataset creation; (ii) readily available datasets and techniques with precise measurements; and (iii) sharing implementations of common imitation learning techniques. Demonstration link: https://nathangavenski.github.io/#/il-datasets-video

Identifying Reasons for Bias: An Argumentation-Based Approach

As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals are classified unfairly. In this paper, we propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. Our method uses a quantitative argumentation framework to represent attribute-value pairs of an individual and of those similar to them, and uses a well-known semantics to identify the attribute-value pairs in the individual contributing most to their different classification. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.

Bias Mitigation Methods for Binary Classification Decision-Making Systems: Survey and Recommendations

Bias mitigation methods for binary classification decision-making systems have been widely researched due to the ever-growing importance of designing fair machine learning processes that are impartial and do not discriminate against individuals or groups based on protected personal characteristics. In this paper, we present a structured overview of the research landscape for bias mitigation methods, report on their benefits and limitations, and provide recommendations for the development of future bias mitigation methods for binary classification.

ProVe: A Pipeline for Automated Provenance Verification of Knowledge Graphs against Textual Sources

Knowledge Graphs are repositories of information that gather data from a multitude of domains and sources in the form of semantic triples, serving as a source of structured data for various crucial applications in the modern web landscape, from Wikipedia infoboxes to search engines. Such graphs mainly serve as secondary sources of information and depend on well-documented and verifiable provenance to ensure their trustworthiness and usability. However, their ability to systematically assess and assure the quality of this provenance, most crucially whether it properly supports the graph's information, relies mainly on manual processes that do not scale with size. ProVe aims at remedying this, consisting of a pipelined approach that automatically verifies whether a Knowledge Graph triple is supported by text extracted from its documented provenance. ProVe is intended to assist information curators and consists of four main steps involving rule-based methods and machine learning models: text extraction, triple verbalisation, sentence selection, and claim verification. ProVe is evaluated on a Wikidata dataset, achieving promising results overall and excellent performance on the binary classification task of detecting support from provenance, with 87.5% accuracy and 82.9% F1-macro on text-rich sources. The evaluation data and scripts used in this paper are available on GitHub and Figshare.

Statistical and Neural Methods for Cross-lingual Entity Label Mapping in Knowledge Graphs

Knowledge bases such as Wikidata amass vast amounts of named entity information, such as multilingual labels, which can be extremely useful for various multilingual and cross-lingual applications. However, such labels are not guaranteed to match across languages from an information consistency standpoint, greatly compromising their usefulness for fields such as machine translation. In this work, we investigate the application of word and sentence alignment techniques coupled with a matching algorithm to align cross-lingual entity labels extracted from Wikidata in 10 languages. Our results indicate that mapping between Wikidata's main labels stands to be considerably improved (up to $20$ points in F1-score) by any of the employed methods. We show how methods relying on sentence embeddings outperform all others, even across different scripts. We believe the application of such techniques to measure the similarity of label pairs, coupled with a knowledge base rich in high-quality entity labels, to be an excellent asset to machine translation.

WDV: A Broad Data Verbalisation Dataset Built from Wikidata

Data verbalisation is a task of great importance in the current field of natural language processing, as there is great benefit in the transformation of our abundant structured and semi-structured data into human-readable formats. Verbalising Knowledge Graph (KG) data focuses on converting interconnected triple-based claims, formed of subject, predicate, and object, into text. Although KG verbalisation datasets exist for some KGs, there are still gaps in their fitness for use in many scenarios. This is especially true for Wikidata, where available datasets either loosely couple claim sets with textual information or heavily focus on predicates around biographies, cities, and countries. To address these gaps, we propose WDV, a large KG claim verbalisation dataset built from Wikidata, with a tight coupling between triples and text, covering a wide variety of entities and predicates. We also evaluate the quality of our verbalisations through a reusable workflow for measuring human-centred fluency and adequacy scores. Our data and code are openly available in the hopes of furthering research towards KG verbalisation.

Assessing the quality of sources in Wikidata across languages: a hybrid approach

Wikidata is one of the most important sources of structured data on the web, built by a worldwide community of volunteers. As a secondary source, its contents must be backed by credible references; this is particularly important as Wikidata explicitly encourages editors to add claims for which there is no broad consensus, as long as they are corroborated by references. Nevertheless, despite this essential link between content and references, Wikidata's ability to systematically assess and assure the quality of its references remains limited. To this end, we carry out a mixed-methods study to determine the relevance, ease of access, and authoritativeness of Wikidata references, at scale and in different languages, using online crowdsourcing, descriptive statistics, and machine learning. Building on previous work of ours, we run a series of microtasks experiments to evaluate a large corpus of references, sampled from Wikidata triples with labels in several languages. We use a consolidated, curated version of the crowdsourced assessments to train several machine learning models to scale up the analysis to the whole of Wikidata. The findings help us ascertain the quality of references in Wikidata, and identify common challenges in defining and capturing the quality of user-generated multilingual structured data on the web. We also discuss ongoing editorial practices, which could encourage the use of higher-quality references in a more immediate way. All data and code used in the study are available on GitHub for feedback and further improvement and deployment by the research community.

Prioritised Default Logic as Argumentation with Partial Order Default Priorities

We express Brewka's prioritised default logic (PDL) as argumentation using ASPIC+. By representing PDL as argumentation and designing an argument preference relation that takes the argument structure into account, we prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments correspond to the PDL extensions. We will first assume that the default priority is total, and then generalise to the case where it is a partial order. This provides a characterisation of non-monotonic inference in PDL as an exchange of argument and counter-argument, providing a basis for distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogue.

Argumentation Semantics for Prioritised Default Logic

We endow prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, and prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments are exactly the prioritised default extensions. Argumentation semantics for PDL will allow for the application of argument game proof theories to the process of inference in PDL, making the reasons for accepting a conclusion transparent and the inference process more intuitive. This also opens up the possibility for argumentation-based distributed reasoning and communication amongst agents with PDL representations of mental attitudes.