Temporal Logic Explanations for Dynamic Decision Systems Using Anchors and Monte Carlo Tree Search (Abstract Reprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many automated perception and decision tasks, state-of-the-art performance may be obtained by algorithms that are too complex for their behavior to be completely understandable or predictable by human users, e.g., because they employ large machine learning models. To integrate these algorithms into safety-critical decision and control systems, it is particularly important to develop methods that can promote trust into their decisions and help explore their failure modes. In this article, we combine the anchors methodology with Monte Carlo Tree Search to provide local model-agnostic explanations for the behaviors of a given black-box model making decisions by processing time-varying input signals. Our approach searches for descriptive explanations for these decisions in the form of properties of the input signals, expressed in Signal Temporal Logic, which are highly likely to reproduce the observed behavior. To illustrate the methodology, we apply it in simulations to the analysis of a hybrid (continuous-discrete) control system and a collision avoidance system for unmanned aircraft (ACAS Xu) implemented by a neural network.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".