Moral responsibility is a major concern in automated decision-making, with applications ranging from self-driving cars to kidney exchanges. From the viewpoint of automated systems, the urgent questions are: (a) How can models of moral scenarios and blameworthiness be extracted and learnt automatically from data? (b) How can judgements be computed tractably, given the split-second decision points faced by the system? By building on deep tractable probabilistic learning, we propose a learning regime for inducing models of such scenarios automatically from data and reasoning tractably from them. We report on experiments that compare our system with human judgement in three illustrative domains: lung cancer staging, teamwork management, and trolley problems.
Probabilistic representations, such as Bayesian and Markov networks, are fundamental to much of statistical machine learning. Thus, learning probabilistic representations directly from data is a deep challenge, the main computational bottleneck being inference that is intractable. Tractable learning is a powerful new paradigm that attempts to learn distributions that support efficient probabilistic querying. By leveraging local structure, representations such as sum-product networks (SPNs) can capture high tree-width models with many hidden layers, essentially a deep architecture, while still admitting a range of probabilistic queries to be computable in time polynomial in the network size. The leaf nodes in SPNs, from which more intricate mixtures are formed, are tractable univariate distributions, and so the literature has focused on Bernoulli and Gaussian random variables. This is clearly a restriction for handling mixed discrete-continuous data, especially if the continuous features are generated from non-parametric and non-Gaussian distribution families. In this work, we present a framework that systematically integrates SPN structure learning with weighted model integration, a recently introduced computational abstraction for performing inference in hybrid domains, by means of piecewise polynomial approximations of density functions of arbitrary shape. Our framework is instantiated by exploiting the notion of propositional abstractions, thus minimally interfering with the SPN structure learning module, and supports a powerful query interface for conditioning on interval constraints. Our empirical results show that our approach is effective, and allows a study of the trade off between the granularity of the learned model and its predictive power.
The field of statistical relational learning aims at unifying logic and probability to reason and learn from data. Perhaps the most successful paradigm in the field is probabilistic logic programming: the enabling of stochastic primitives in logic programming, which is now increasingly seen to provide a declarative background to complex machine learning applications. While many systems offer inference capabilities, the more significant challenge is that of learning meaningful and interpretable symbolic representations from data. In that regard, inductive logic programming and related techniques have paved much of the way for the last few decades. Unfortunately, a major limitation of this exciting landscape is that much of the work is limited to finite-domain discrete probability distributions. Recently, a handful of systems have been extended to represent and perform inference with continuous distributions. The problem, of course, is that classical solutions for inference are either restricted to well-known parametric families (e.g., Gaussians) or resort to sampling strategies that provide correct answers only in the limit. When it comes to learning, moreover, inducing representations remains entirely open, other than "data-fitting" solutions that force-fit points to aforementioned parametric families. In this paper, we take the first steps towards inducing probabilistic logic programs for continuous and mixed discrete-continuous data, without being pigeon-holed to a fixed set of distribution families. Our key insight is to leverage techniques from piecewise polynomial function approximation theory, yielding a principled way to learn and compositionally construct density functions. We test the framework and discuss the learned representations.
Among the many approaches for reasoning about degrees of belief in the presence of noisy sensing and acting, the logical account proposed by Bacchus, Halpern, and Levesque is perhaps the most expressive. While their formalism is quite general, it is restricted to fluents whose values are drawn from discrete finite domains, as opposed to the continuous domains seen in many robotic applications. In this work, we show how this limitation in that approach can be lifted. By dealing seamlessly with both discrete distributions and continuous densities within a rich theory of action, we provide a very general logical specification of how belief should change after acting and sensing in complex noisy domains.
In an influential paper, Levesque proposed a formal specification for analysing the correctness of program-like plans, such as conditional plans, iterative plans, and knowledge-based plans. He motivated a logical characterisation within the situation calculus that included binary sensing actions. While the characterisation does not immediately yield a practical algorithm, the specification serves as a general skeleton to explore the synthesis of program-like plans for reasonable, tractable fragments. Increasingly, classical plan structures are being applied to stochastic environments such as robotics applications. This raises the question as to what the specification for correctness should look like, since Levesque's account makes the assumption that sensing is exact and actions are deterministic. Building on a situation calculus theory for reasoning about degrees of belief and noise, we revisit the execution semantics of generalised plans. The specification is then used to analyse the correctness of example plans.
Automated planning is a major topic of research in artificial intelligence, and enjoys a long and distinguished history. The classical paradigm assumes a distinguished initial state, comprised of a set of facts, and is defined over a set of actions which change that state in one way or another. Planning in many real-world settings, however, is much more involved: an agent's knowledge is almost never simply a set of facts that are true, and actions that the agent intends to execute never operate the way they are supposed to. Thus, probabilistic planning attempts to incorporate stochastic models directly into the planning process. In this article, we briefly report on probabilistic planning through the lens of probabilistic programming: a programming paradigm that aims to ease the specification of structured probability distributions. In particular, we provide an overview of the features of two systems, HYPE and ALLEGRO, which emphasise different strengths of probabilistic programming that are particularly useful for complex modelling issues raised in probabilistic planning. Among other things, with these systems, one can instantiate planning problems with growing and shrinking state spaces, discrete and continuous probability distributions, and non-unique prior distributions in a first-order setting.
To solve hard problems, AI relies on a variety of disciplines such as logic, probabilistic reasoning, machine learning and mathematical programming. Although it is widely accepted that solving real-world problems requires an integration amongst these, contemporary representation methodologies offer little support for this. In an attempt to alleviate this situation, we introduce a new declarative programming framework that provides abstractions of well-known problems such as SAT, Bayesian inference, generative models, and convex optimization. The semantics of programs is defined in terms of first-order structures with semiring labels, which allows us to freely combine and integrate problems from different AI disciplines.
A recent trend in probabilistic inference emphasizes the codification of models in a formal syntax, with suitable high-level features such as individuals, relations, and connectives, enabling descriptive clarity, succinctness and circumventing the need for the modeler to engineer a custom solver. Unfortunately, bringing these linguistic and pragmatic benefits to numerical optimization has proven surprisingly challenging. In this paper, we turn to these challenges: we introduce a rich modeling language, for which an interior-point method computes approximate solutions in a generic way. While logical features easily complicates the underlying model, often yielding intricate dependencies, we exploit and cache local structure using algebraic decision diagrams (ADDs). Indeed, standard matrix-vector algebra is efficiently realizable in ADDs, but we argue and show that well-known optimization methods are not ideal for ADDs. Our engine, therefore, invokes a sophisticated matrix-free approach. We demonstrate the flexibility of the resulting symbolic-numeric optimizer on decision making and compressed sensing tasks with millions of non-zero entries.
Location estimation is a fundamental sensing task in robotic applications, where the world is uncertain, and sensors and effectors are noisy. Most systems make various assumptions about the dependencies between state variables, and especially about how these dependencies change as a result of actions. Building on a general framework by Bacchus, Halpern and Levesque for reasoning about degrees of belief in the situation calculus, and a recent extension to it for continuous domains, in this paper we illustrate location estimation in the presence of a rich theory of actions using an example. We also show that while actions might affect prior distributions in nonstandard ways, suitable posterior beliefs are nonetheless entailed as a side-effect of the overall specification.
Reasoning about degrees of belief in uncertain dynamic worlds is fundamental to many applications, such as robotics and planning, where actions modify state properties and sensors provide measurements, both of which are prone to noise. With the exception of limited cases such as Gaussian processes over linear phenomena, belief state evolution can be complex and hard to reason with in a general way. This paper proposes a framework with new results that allows the reduction of subjective probabilities after sensing and acting to questions about the initial state only. We build on an expressive probabilistic first-order logical account by Bacchus, Halpern and Levesque, resulting in a methodology that, in principle, can be coupled with a variety of existing inference solutions.