Skip to main content

Explaining Optimal Trajectories

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14244))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 218 Accesses

Abstract

We propose a definition of common explanation for the label shared by a group of observations described as first order interpretations, and provide algorithms to enumerate minimal common explanations. This was motivated by explaining how performing some action, for instance a card played during a card game play, results in winning a maximum total reward at the end of the trajectory. As there are various ways to reach this reward, each associated to a group of trajectories, we propose to first build groups of trajectories and then build minimal common explanations for each group. The whole method is illustrated on a simplified Bridge game.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Using the ILP system cLear, developed by NukkAI.

  2. 2.

    While most predicates are self-explanatory some are not. \( willTakeTrickWith (12, north ,T)\) says that at time T and by playing 12 which is the highest card on the board or in hands of players that yet have to play in the current trick, North will win the trick. \( nbThreats (2,Player,0,[7,7])\) says that at time \(t_7\) card 2 of \( Player \) has no threats by cards from its opponents. It also says that such threatening cards exists in \(t_6\).

  3. 3.

    If possible the opponent plays a card higher than the last card played in the trick.

References

  1. Ai, L., Muggleton, S.H., Hocquette, C., Gromowski, M., Schmid, U.: Beneficial and harmful explanatory machine learning. Mach. Learn. 110(4), 695–721 (2021)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Audemard, G., Bellart, S., Bounia, L., Koriche, F., Lagniez, J., Marquis, P.: On preferred abductive explanations for decision trees and random forests. In: Raedt, L.D. (ed.) Proceedings of IJCAI 2022, pp. 643–650 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Audemard, G., Bellart, S., Bounia, L., Koriche, F., Lagniez, J., Marquis, P.: On the explanatory power of boolean decision trees. Data Knowl. Eng. 142, 102088 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blockeel, H., Raedt, L.D., Jacobs, N., Demoen, B.: Scaling up inductive logic programming by learning from interpretations. In: DMKD 1999, vol. 3, pp. 59–93 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, W.W., Jr., Page, C.D.: Polynomial learnability and inductive logic programming: methods and results. New Gener. Comput. 13(3 &4), 369–409 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Darwiche, A., Hirth, A.: On the reasons behind decisions. In: ECAI 2020. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 325, pp. 712–720 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dehaspe, L.: Frequent pattern discovery in first-order logic. AI Commun. 12(1–2), 115–117 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Echenim, M., Peltier, N.: A calculus for generating ground explanations. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7364, pp. 194–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31365-3_17

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Garriga, G.C., Khardon, R., Raedt, L.D.: Mining closed patterns in relational, graph and network data. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 69(4), 315–342 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang, X., Izza, Y., Ignatiev, A., Marques-Silva, J.: On efficiently explaining graph-based classifiers. In: Proceedings of KR 2021, pp. 356–367 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ignatiev, A., Narodytska, N., Marques-Silva, J.: Abduction-based explanations for machine learning models. In: AAAI 2019, pp. 1511–1519 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Inoue, K.: Consequence-finding based on ordered linear resolution. In: IJCAI 1991, pp. 158–164. Morgan Kaufmann (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Marquis, P.: Extending abduction from propositional to first-order logic. In: Jorrand, P., Kelemen, J. (eds.) FAIR 1991. LNCS, vol. 535, pp. 141–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-54507-7_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell, T.M.: Generalization as search. Artif. Intell. 18(2), 203–226 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Muggleton, S., Raedt, L.D.: Inductive logic programming: theory and methods. J. Log. Program. 19(20), 629–679 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Nienhuys-Cheng, S.H., de Wolf, R.: Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming. Springer, New York (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62927-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Plotkin, G.D.: A note on inductive generalization. Mach. Intell. 5, 153–163 (1970)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Quinlan, J.R., Cameron-Jones, R.M.: FOIL: a midterm report. In: Brazdil, P.B. (ed.) ECML 1993. LNCS, vol. 667, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56602-3_124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabold, J., Siebers, M., Schmid, U.: Generating contrastive explanations for inductive logic programming based on a near miss approach. Mach. Learn. 111(5), 1799–1820 (2022)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., Guestrin, C.: “Why should i trust you?”: explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1135–1144 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shakerin, F., Gupta, G.: Induction of non-monotonic logic programs to explain boosted tree models using LIME. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2019, pp. 3052–3059 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Soulet, A., Rioult, F.: Exact and approximate minimal pattern mining. In: Guillet, F., Pinaud, B., Venturini, G. (eds.) Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Management. SCI, vol. 665, pp. 61–81. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45763-5_4

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Junkang Li who wrote the program that solves the MDP and Dr Dominique Bouthinon for helping us to apply the ILP program cLear for the simplified Bridge game. M. Kazi Aoual is partially supported by ANRT through a CIFRE agreement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Soldano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rouveirol, C., Kazi Aoual, M., Soldano, H., Ventos, V. (2023). Explaining Optimal Trajectories. In: Fensel, A., Ozaki, A., Roman, D., Soylu, A. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14244. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45072-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45072-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45071-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45072-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics