In peer review systems, reviewers are often asked to evaluate various features of submissions, such as technical quality or novelty. A score is given to each of the predefined features and based on these the reviewer has to provide an overall quantitative recommendation. It may be assumed that each reviewer has her own mapping from the set of features to a recommendation, and that different reviewers have different mappings in mind. This introduces an element of arbitrariness known as commensuration bias. In this paper we discuss a framework, introduced by Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia, and then applied by the organizers of the AAAI 2022 conference. Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia proposed to aggregate reviewer's mapping by minimizing certain loss functions, and studied axiomatic properties of this approach, in the sense of social choice theory. We challenge several of the results and assumptions used in their work and report a number of negative results. On the one hand, we study a trade-off between some of the axioms proposed and the ability of the method to properly capture agreements of the majority of reviewers. On the other hand, we show that dropping a certain unrealistic assumption has dramatic effects, including causing the method to be discontinuous.

The formal XAI community has studied a plethora of interpretability queries aiming to understand the classifications made by decision trees. However, a more uniform understanding of what questions we can hope to answer about these models, traditionally deemed to be easily interpretable, has remained elusive. In an initial attempt to understand uniform languages for interpretability, Arenas et al. (2021) proposed FOIL, a logic for explaining black-box ML models, and showed that it can express a variety of interpretability queries. However, we show that FOIL is limited in two important senses: (i) it is not expressive enough to capture some crucial queries, and (ii) its model agnostic nature results in a high computational complexity for decision trees. In this paper, we carefully craft two fragments of first-order logic that allow for efficiently interpreting decision trees: Q-DT-FOIL and its optimization variant OPT-DT-FOIL. We show that our proposed logics can express not only a variety of interpretability queries considered by previous literature, but also elegantly allows users to specify different objectives the sought explanations should optimize for. Using finite model-theoretic techniques, we show that the different ingredients of Q-DT-FOIL are necessary for its expressiveness, and yet that queries in Q-DT-FOIL can be evaluated with a polynomial number of queries to a SAT solver, as well as their optimization versions in OPT-DT-FOIL. Besides our theoretical results, we provide a SAT-based implementation of the evaluation for OPT-DT-FOIL that is performant on industry-size decision trees.

Knowledge Graphs popularity has been rapidly growing in last years. All that knowledge is available for people to query it through the many online databases on the internet. Though, it would be a great achievement if non-programmer users could access whatever information they want to know. There has been a lot of effort oriented to solve this task using natural language processing tools and creativity encouragement by way of many challenges. Our approach focuses on assuming a correct entity linking on the natural language questions and training a GPT model to create SPARQL queries from them. We managed to isolate which property of the task can be the most difficult to solve at few or zero-shot and we proposed pre-training on all entities (under CWA) to improve the performance. We obtained a 62.703% accuracy of exact SPARQL matches on testing at 3-shots, a F1 of 0.809 on the entity linking challenge and a F1 of 0.009 on the question answering challenge.