Unsupervised Alignment-based Iterative Evidence Retrieval for Multi-hop Question Answering

Evidence retrieval is a critical stage of question answering (QA), necessary not only to improve performance, but also to explain the decisions of the corresponding QA method. We introduce a simple, fast, and unsupervised iterative evidence retrieval method, which relies on three ideas: (a) an unsupervised alignment approach to soft-align questions and answers with justification sentences using only GloVe embeddings, (b) an iterative process that reformulates queries focusing on terms that are not covered by existing justifications, which (c) a stopping criterion that terminates retrieval when the terms in the given question and candidate answers are covered by the retrieved justifications. Despite its simplicity, our approach outperforms all the previous methods (including supervised methods) on the evidence selection task on two datasets: MultiRC and QASC. When these evidence sentences are fed into a RoBERTa answer classification component, we achieve state-of-the-art QA performance on these two datasets.Comment: Accepted at ACL 2020 as a long conference pape

Explanation-Based Auditing

To comply with emerging privacy laws and regulations, it has become common for applications like electronic health records systems (EHRs) to collect access logs, which record each time a user (e.g., a hospital employee) accesses a piece of sensitive data (e.g., a patient record). Using the access log, it is easy to answer simple queries (e.g., Who accessed Alice's medical record?), but this often does not provide enough information. In addition to learning who accessed their medical records, patients will likely want to understand why each access occurred. In this paper, we introduce the problem of generating explanations for individual records in an access log. The problem is motivated by user-centric auditing applications, and it also provides a novel approach to misuse detection. We develop a framework for modeling explanations which is based on a fundamental observation: For certain classes of databases, including EHRs, the reason for most data accesses can be inferred from data stored elsewhere in the database. For example, if Alice has an appointment with Dr. Dave, this information is stored in the database, and it explains why Dr. Dave looked at Alice's record. Large numbers of data accesses can be explained using general forms called explanation templates. Rather than requiring an administrator to manually specify explanation templates, we propose a set of algorithms for automatically discovering frequent templates from the database (i.e., those that explain a large number of accesses). We also propose techniques for inferring collaborative user groups, which can be used to enhance the quality of the discovered explanations. Finally, we have evaluated our proposed techniques using an access log and data from the University of Michigan Health System. Our results demonstrate that in practice we can provide explanations for over 94% of data accesses in the log.Comment: VLDB201

Reasoning about Explanations for Negative Query Answers in DL-Lite

In order to meet usability requirements, most logic-based applications provide explanation facilities for reasoning services. This holds also for Description Logics, where research has focused on the explanation of both TBox reasoning and, more recently, query answering. Besides explaining the presence of a tuple in a query answer, it is important to explain also why a given tuple is missing. We address the latter problem for instance and conjunctive query answering over DL-Lite ontologies by adopting abductive reasoning; that is, we look for additions to the ABox that force a given tuple to be in the result. As reasoning tasks we consider existence and recognition of an explanation, and relevance and necessity of a given assertion for an explanation. We characterize the computational complexity of these problems for arbitrary, subset minimal, and cardinality minimal explanations

Ontology-based explanation of classifiers

The rise of data mining and machine learning use in many applications has brought new challenges related to classification. Here, we deal with the following challenge: how to interpret and understand the reason behind a classifier's prediction. Indeed, understanding the behaviour of a classifier is widely recognized as a very important task for wide and safe adoption of machine learning and data mining technologies, especially in high-risk domains, and in dealing with bias.We present a preliminary work on a proposal of using the Ontology-Based Data Management paradigm for explaining the behavior of a classifier in terms of the concepts and the relations that are meaningful in the domain that is relevant for the classifier