Scalable Boolean Tensor Factorizations using Random Walks

Tensors are becoming increasingly common in data mining, and consequently, tensor factorizations are becoming more and more important tools for data miners. When the data is binary, it is natural to ask if we can factorize it into binary factors while simultaneously making sure that the reconstructed tensor is still binary. Such factorizations, called Boolean tensor factorizations, can provide improved interpretability and find Boolean structure that is hard to express using normal factorizations. Unfortunately the algorithms for computing Boolean tensor factorizations do not usually scale well. In this paper we present a novel algorithm for finding Boolean CP and Tucker decompositions of large and sparse binary tensors. In our experimental evaluation we show that our algorithm can handle large tensors and accurately reconstructs the latent Boolean structure

Visualizing recommendations to support exploration, transparency and controllability

Research on recommender systems has traditionally focused on the development of algorithms to improve accuracy of recommendations. So far, little research has been done to enable user interaction with such systems as a basis to support exploration and control by end users. In this paper, we present our research on the use of information visualization techniques to interact with recommender systems. We investigated how information visualization can improve user understanding of the typically black-box rationale behind recommendations in order to increase their perceived relevance and meaning and to support exploration and user involvement in the recommendation process. Our study has been performed using TalkExplorer, an interactive visualization tool developed for attendees of academic conferences. The results of user studies performed at two conferences allowed us to obtain interesting insights to enhance user interfaces that integrate recommendation technology. More specifically, effectiveness and probability of item selection both increase when users are able to explore and interrelate multiple entities - i.e. items bookmarked by users, recommendations and tags. Copyright © 2013 ACM

The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines

Algorithmic decision-making has become synonymous with inexplicable decision-making, but what makes algorithms so difficult to explain? This Article examines what sets machine learning apart from other ways of developing rules for decision-making and the problem these properties pose for explanation. We show that machine learning models can be both inscrutable and nonintuitive and that these are related, but distinct, properties. Calls for explanation have treated these problems as one and the same, but disentangling the two reveals that they demand very different responses. Dealing with inscrutability requires providing a sensible description of the rules; addressing nonintuitiveness requires providing a satisfying explanation for why the rules are what they are. Existing laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as techniques within machine learning, are focused almost entirely on the problem of inscrutability. While such techniques could allow a machine learning system to comply with existing law, doing so may not help if the goal is to assess whether the basis for decision-making is normatively defensible. In most cases, intuition serves as the unacknowledged bridge between a descriptive account and a normative evaluation. But because machine learning is often valued for its ability to uncover statistical relationships that defy intuition, relying on intuition is not a satisfying approach. This Article thus argues for other mechanisms for normative evaluation. To know why the rules are what they are, one must seek explanations of the process behind a model’s development, not just explanations of the model itself

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New