Search

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) store information in the form of (head, predicate, tail)-triples. To augment KGs with new knowledge, researchers proposed models for KG Completion (KGC) tasks such as link prediction; i.e., answering (h; p; ?) or (?; p; t) queries. Such models are usually evaluated with averaged metrics on a held-out test set. While useful for tracking progress, averaged single-score metrics cannot reveal what exactly a model has learned -- or failed to learn. To address this issue, we propose KGxBoard: an interactive framework for performing fine-grained evaluation on meaningful subsets of the data, each of which tests individual and interpretable capabilities of a KGC model. In our experiments, we highlight the findings that we discovered with the use of KGxBoard, which would have been impossible to detect with standard averaged single-score metrics.

With the rise of AI systems in real-world applications comes the need for reliable and trustworthy AI. An essential aspect of this are explainable AI systems. However, there is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework where a leading domain expert accepts or rejects the solutions of an AI system and another domain expert. By comparing the acceptance rates of provided solutions, we can assess how the AI system performs compared to the domain expert, and whether the AI system's explanations (if provided) are human-understandable. This setup -- comparable to the Turing test -- can serve as a framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments. We demonstrate this by presenting two instantiations: (1) an assessment that measures the classification accuracy of a system with the option to incorporate label uncertainties; (2) an assessment where the usefulness of provided explanations is determined in a human-centric manner., Comment: Accepted as submission to ICML 2022 Workshop on Human-Machine Collaboration and Teaming