Title: Increasing Trust in Answers from Intelligence Applications: the Inference Web Approach
1Increasing Trust in Answers from Intelligence
Applicationsthe Inference Web Approach
- Deborah McGuinness
- Co-Director and Senior Research Scientist
- Knowledge Systems Laboratory
- Stanford University
- dlm_at_ksl.stanford.edu
- http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
- Inference Web is joint work with Pinheiro da
Silva, Fikes, Chang, Deshwal, Narayanan, Glass,
Makarios, Jenkins, Millar, Ding,
2Semantic Web Layers
- Ontology Level
- Languages (CLASSIC, DAML-ONT, DAMLOIL, OWL, )
- Environments (FindUR, Chimaera,
OntoBuilder/Server, Sandpiper Tools, ) - Standards (NAPLPS, , W3Cs WebOnt, W3Cs
Semantic Web Best Practices, EU/US Joint
Committee, OMG ODM, - Rules
- SWRL (previously CLASSIC Rules, explanation
environment, extensibility issues, contracts,
) - Logic
- Description Logics
- Proof
- PML, Inference Web Services and Infrastructure
- Trust
- IWTrust, NSF with W3C/MIT
http//www.w3.org/2004/Talks/0412-RDF-functions/sl
ide4-0.html
3Motivation Trust and Understanding
- If users (humans and agents) are to use, reuse,
and integrate system answers, they must trust
them. - System transparency supports understanding and
trust. - Even simple lookup systems benefit from
providing information about their sources. - Systems that manipulate information (with sound
deduction or potentially unsound heuristics)
benefit from providing information about their
manipulations.
Goal Provide interoperable infrastructure that
supports explanations of sources, assumptions,
and answers as an enabler for trust.
4Requirements gathered from
- DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML)
- Enable the next generation of the web
- DARPA Personal Assistant that Learns (PAL)
- Enable computer systems that can reason, learn,
be told what to do, explain what they are doing,
reflect on their experience, respond robustly
to surprise - DARPA Rapid Knowledge Formation (RKF)
- Allow distributed teams of subject matter experts
to quickly and easily build, maintain, and use
knowledge bases without need for specialized
training - DARPA High Performance Knowledge Base (HPKB)
- Advance the technology of how computers acquire,
represent manipulate knowledge - ARDA Novel Intelligence for Massive Data (NIMD)
- Avoid strategic surprise by helping analysts be
more effective (focus attention on critical
information and help analyze/prune/refine/explain/
reuse/) - ARDA Advanced Question Answering for
Intelligence (AQUAINT) - Advance QA against structured and unstructured
info - Consulting including search, ecommerce,
configuration,
5Requirements
- Information Manipulation Traces
- hybrid, distributed, portable, shareable,
combinable encoding of proof fragments supporting
multiple justifications - Presentation
- multiple display formats supporting browsing,
visualization, summaries, - Abstraction
- understandable summaries
- Interaction
- multi-modal mixed initiative options including
natural-language and GUI dialogues, adaptive,
context-sensitive interaction - Trust
- source and reasoning provenance, automated trust
inference - McGuinness Pinheiro da Silva, ISWC 2003, J.
Journal of Web Semantics 2004
6Selected History
- Historical explanation research motivated by
explaining theorem provers in practice - Web version originally aimed at explaining hybrid
(FOL / special purpose) reasoners in a
distributed environment like the web. - User demand drove focus on provenance extensions
- Current web environment and programs, such as
NIMD, drove connections with extraction engines - Current view Any question answering system can
be viewed as some kind of information manipulator
that may benefit from and/or require explanation
7Inference Web
- Framework for explaining question answering tasks
by abstracting, storing, exchanging, combining,
annotating, filtering, segmenting, comparing, and
rendering proofs and proof fragments provided by
question answerers - IWs Proof Markup Language (PML) is an
interlingua for proof interchange. It is written
in W3Cs recommended Ontology web language (OWL) - IWBase is a distributed repository of
meta-information related to proofs and their
explanations - IW Registration services provide support for
proof generation and checking - IW Browser provides display capabilities for PML
documents containing proofs and explanations
(possibly from multiple inference engines) - IW Abstractor provides rewriting capabilities
enabling more understandable presentations - IW Explainer provides multi-modal dialogue
options including alternative strategies for
presenting explanations, visualizations, and
summaries
- Work with Pinheiro da Silva
8Explainable System Structure
Trust
Explanation
Interaction
Presentation
Abstraction
PML
InferenceML
Proof Interlingua (PML)
Inference Rule Specs
Source Provenance Data
Information Manipulation Data
Source Provenance Data
Information Manipulation Data
9Registry Information
- IWBase has core and domain-specific repositories
of meta-data useful for disclosing knowledge
provenance and reasoning information such as
descriptions of - Question answering systems (Inference Engines,
Extractors, ) along with their supported
inference rules - Information sources such as organizations,
publications and ontologies - Representation languages along with their axioms
10 11 12Browsing Proofs
- Enable the visualization of proofs (and
abstracted proofs) - Proofs can be extracted and browsed from both
local and remote PML node sets and can be
combined - Links provide access to proof-related
meta-information
select
select
13Browsing Proofs
14Explainer
- Present
- Query
- Answer
- Abstraction of justification (PML information)
- Limited meta information
- Suggests drill down options (also provides
feedback options)
15UIMA Explanation
16Follow-up Metadata
17Follow-up Assumptions
18Explaining Extracted Entities (Techies)
Sentences in English
Sentences in annotated English
Sentences in logical format, i.e., KIF
19Further Observations on Explaining Extracted
Entities
Source fbi_01.txt Source Usage span from 01 to
78
Same conclusion from multiple extractors
conflicting conclusion from one extractor
This extractor decided that Person_fbi-01.txt_46
is a Person and not Occupation
20 Search / Configuration
21KSL Wine AgentSemantic Web Integration Example
-
- Uses emerging web standards to enable smart web
applications - Given a meal description
- Deborahs Specialty
- Describe matching wines
- White, Dry, Full bodied
- Retrieve some specific options from web
- Forman Chardonnay from DLMs cellar, ThreeSteps
from wine.com, . -
- Info http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webo
nt/wineAgent/
22 KSL Wine Agent Semantic Web Integration
Technology
OWL for representing a domain ontology of
foods, wines, their properties, and relationships
between them JTP theorem prover for deriving
appropriate pairings DQL/OWL QL for querying
a knowledge base Inference Web for explaining
and validating answers (descriptions or
instances) Web Services for interfacing with
vendors Connections to online web
agents/information services Utilities for
conducting and caching the above transactions
23 24Knowledge Provenance Elicitation
XYZ says AB is the answer for my question.
Provenance information may be essential for users
to trust answers.
Data provenance (aka data lineage) is defined and
studied in the database literature. Buneman et
al., ICDT 2001 Cui and Widom, VLDB 2001
Why should I believe this?
Knowledge provenance extends data provenance by
adding data derivation provenance
information Pinheiro da Silva, McGuinness
McCool, Data Eng. Bulletin, 2003
25IWTrust Trust in Action
Google-2.0 says AB is the answer for my
question.
Trust can be inferred from a Web of Trust.
Why should I trust the answer?
0
?
IWTrust provides infrastructure for building webs
of trust.
The infrastructure includes a trust component
responsible for computing trust values for
answers.
IWTrust is described in Zaihrayeu, Pinheiro da
Silva McGuinness, iTrust 2005
AB
0
0
?
?
26Explanation Application Areas
- Theorem proving
- First-Order Theorem Provers Stanford (JTP
(KIF/OWL/)) SRI (SNARK) University of Texas,
Austin (KM) - SATisfiability Solvers University of Trento
(JSAT) - Information extraction IBM (UIMA), Stanford
(TAP) - Information integration/aggregation USC ISI
(Prometheus,Mediator -gt Fetch) Rutgers ,
Stanford (TAP) - Task processing SRI International (SPARK)
- Service composition Stanford, U. of Toronto,
UCSF (SDS) - Semantic matching University of Trento
(S-MATCH) - Debugging ontologies U of Maryland, College
Park (SWOOP/Pellet) - Problem solving University of Fortaleza
- Trust Networks U. of Trento (IWTrust), UMd
27Inference Web Contributions
- Language for encoding hybrid, distributed proof
fragments based on web technologies. Support for
both formal and informal proofs (information
manipulation traces).
Trust
Explanation
Interaction
2. Support (registry, language, services) for
knowledge provenance
Presentation
Abstraction
3. Declarative inference rule representation for
checking hybrid, distributed proofs.
Inference Meta-Language
Proof Markup Language
Inference Rule Specs
Provenance Meta-data
Information Manipulation Data
4. Multiple strategies for proof abstraction,
presentation and interaction.
5. End-to-end trust value computation for
answers.
6. Comprehensive solution for explainable systems
28Status
- Inference Web infrastructure (PML, browser,
explainer, registry, toolkit) being used in
government programs such as PAL and NIMD,
commercial research labs IBM, Boeing, SRI,
Universities USC, U MD, - Integration and registration process underway
with extraction community - Useful now for helping decide if information is
trustworthy, comes from authoritative sources,
consistent, reliable - Benefits from more meta data and more information
population but is useful in an incremental nature
29Technical Status
- Some focus areas
- Follow-up question support
- Trust
- Contradiction support
- Abstraction techniques
- Extraction extensions
- Task-oriented reasoning support
- Query manager explanation support
- Toolkit for embedding
- Open issues for explanation
- Granularity of explanations
- Meta information filtering
- Abstraction techniques
- Requests / Suggestions?
30More Info
- Inference Web http//iw.stanford.edu
- OWL http//www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
http//www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ - DAMLOIL http//www.daml.org/
- WineAgent www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/
wineAgent/ - Chimaera http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/software/c
himaera/ - OWL-QL/DQL http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/projec
ts/dql/ - UIMA http//www.research.ibm.com/UIMA/
- dlm_at_ksl.stanford.edu
31Extras
32Background
- ATT Bell Labs AI Principles Dept
- Description Logics, CLASSIC, explanation,
ontology environments - Semantic Search, FindUR, Collaborative Ontology
Building Env - Apps Configurators, PROSE/Questar, Data Mining,
- Stanford Knowledge Systems, Artificial
Intelligence Lab - Ontology Evolution Environments (Diagnostics and
Merging) Chimaera - Explanation and Trust, Inference Web
- Semantic Web Representation and Reasoning
Languages, DAML-ONT, DAMLOIL, OWL, - Rules and Services SWRL, OWL-S, Explainable SDS,
KSL Wine Agent - McGuinness Associates
- Ontology Environments Sandpiper, VerticalNet,
Cisco - Knowledge Acquisition and Ontology Building
VSTO, GeON, ImEp, - Applications GM Search, etc. CISCO meta
data org, etc. - Boards Network Inference, Sandpiper,
Buildfolio, Tumri, Katalytik
33 KSL Wine Agent Semantic Web Integration (Toy)
Example
-
- Uses emerging web standards to enable smart web
application - Given a meal description
- Deborahs Specialty, a crab dish,
- Describe matching wines
- White, Dry, Full bodied
- Retrieve some specific options from web
- Forman Chardonnay from DLMs cellar, ThreeSteps
from wine.com, . - Explain description or specific suggestion
- Info http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webo
nt/wineAgent/
34 KSL Wine Agent Semantic Web Integration
Technology
-
- OWL for representing a domain ontology of
foods, wines, their properties, and relationships
between them - JTP theorem prover for deriving appropriate
pairings - Chimaera ontology diagnostics and ontology
merging - DQL/OWL QL for querying a knowledge base
- Inference Web for explaining and validating
answers (descriptions or instances) - Web Services for interfacing with vendors
- Connections to online web agents/information
services - Utilities for conducting and caching the above
transactions -
35Inference Web in KANI Context
36Summary
- Tools are emerging that support understanding
information - Understanding/Evaluating information can help
focus a users attention and enable trust, reuse,
and filtering - Semantic Web infrastructure (OWL, Structured
query languages, Semantic Search, Extractors,
Reasoners, Explanation Infrastructure, .) is
ready for use and a growing trend
37Knowledge Provenance Multiple Sources
Answer
Source
Source
38Extra
39Inferences drawn by Information Extraction
40Infrastructure Core IWBase
Statistics for relevant domain independent
meta-data
29
Inference Engines
56
Axioms
38
Declarative Rules
select
10
Method Rules
6
Derived Rules
12
Languages
select
41Explaining Answers GUI Explainer
Users can exit the explainer providing feedback
about their satisfiability with explanation(s)
Select action
Users can ask for alternative explanations or
summaries
42Follow-up PML Abstraction(Techies only)
43Browsing
- Present
- Query
- Answer
- Alternate formats (KIF, English, Raw, )
- Graph Structure (with lens view)
- Annotations
44Knowledge Provenance Multiple Sources
Answer
Source
Source
45 IWTrustImproving User
Trust in Answers from the Web
- Ilya Zaihrayeu
- ITC-IRST
- Paulo Pinheiro da Silva
- Deborah L. McGuinness
- Stanford University
46Trusting Answers
- It may be challenging for users to establish
their degrees of trust, untrust, mistrust and
distrust in a web application answer if the
answer is provided without any kind of
justification - Knowledge Provenance (KP) is a description of
both the origins of knowledge and the reasoning
process to produce an answer - Users may need KP to establish a degree of trust
in the answer - Which sources were used?
- Who are the authors of such sources?
- Which engines were used?
- What are the assumptions of the engines? Are the
engines rules sound? - KP itself may not be enough for trusting the
answer - I may not know anything about one or more sources
in the KP - I may have no information about the reliability
of one or more of then engines in the KP
47Trusting Answers from the Web
- The overall process of establishing a degree of
trust in answers from web applications is
particularly complex since applications may rely
on - Hybrid and distributed processing, e.g., web
services, the Grid - Large number of heterogeneous, distributed
information sources, e.g., the Web - information sources with more variation in their
reliability, e.g., information extraction - Sophisticated information integration methods,
e.g., SIMS, TSIMMIS - The definition of trust is a significant part of
the process
- The task of keeping, encoding, sharing and
gathering KP for partial answers towards the
generation of the KP for answers is another part
of the process - The use of KP to derive trust values for answers
is yet another part of the process
48The Inference Web
- The Inference Web is an infrastructure supporting
explanations for answers from the web - The Proof Markup Language (PML) is used to encode
answer justification, i.e., information
manipulation traces, proofs - IWBase is used to annotate PML documents with
proof-related data, i.e., trust values for
sources and engines
- User U1 asks question Q
- A question answering system returns the set of
answers A1,A2,,An
PML Documents
IWBase
S1
(A1, t11, t12,...)
IE1
Q(U1)
S2
(A2, t21, t22,...)
...
S3
...
(An, tn1, tn2,...)
IE2
49Inference Web and KP
- Inference Web is an infrastructure supporting
KP for answers derived by multiple methods - Information extraction IBM (UIMA), Stanford
(TAP) - Information integration USC ISI
(Prometheus/Mediator) Rutgers University
(Prolog/Datalog) - Task processing SRI International (SPARK)
- Theorem proving
- First-Order Theorem Provers SRI International
(SNARK) Stanford (JTP) University of Texas,
Austin (KM) - SATisfiability Solvers University of Trento
(J-SAT) - Expert Systems University of Fortaleza (JEOPS)
- Service composition Stanford, University of
Toronto, UCSF (SDS) - Semantic matching University of Trento
(S-Match) - Debugging ontologies University of Maryland,
College Park (SWOOP/Pellet) - Problem solving University of Fortaleza
(ExpertCop)
50The Inference Web Trust (IWTrust)
- IWTrust extends the Inference Web to support
trust computation - IW TrustNet is a social network of source
recommenders - A trust component implementing an algorithm to
compute trust values for answers - Trust values are used to rank answers and answer
justifications - User U1 trusts U3 to a degree t1-3
PML Documents
IWBase
S1
(A1, t11, t12,...)
IE1
Q(U1)
S2
(A2, t21, t22,...)
...
S3
...
(An, tn1, tn2,...)
IE2
51Conclusions
- IWTrust provides infrastructure for building a
trust graph from a user asking a question to the
answers for the question - Knowledge Provenance is a key element of the
trust graph and a requirement for trusting
answers in general - Inference Web is a Semantic Web solution for
Knowledge Provenance - iw.stanford.edu
- Adaptive explanations based on user modeling
- IWBase registration of a large set of software
systems - Registration of a comprehensive set of primitive
rules - Established library of explanation tactics
- IWTrust intends to be a solution for the Semantic
Web trust layer
- Inference Web is a solution for the Semantic Web
proof layer