Knowledge-augmented Risk Assessment (KaRA): a hybrid-intelligence framework for supporting knowledge-intensive risk assessment of prospect candidates

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05288v1
• Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:32:11 GMT
• Title: Knowledge-augmented Risk Assessment (KaRA): a hybrid-intelligence framework for supporting knowledge-intensive risk assessment of prospect candidates
• Authors: Carlos Raoni Mendes, Emilio Vital Brazil, Vinicius Segura, and Renato Cerqueira
• Abstract summary: In many contexts, assessing the Probability of Success (PoS) of prospects heavily depends on experts' knowledge, often leading to biased and inconsistent assessments. We have developed the framework named KARA to address these issues. It combines multiple AI techniques that consider SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) feedback on top of a structured domain knowledge-base to support risk assessment processes of prospect candidates.
• Score: 2.3311636727756055
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the potential of a prospective candidate is a common task in multiple decision-making processes in different industries. We refer to a prospect as something or someone that could potentially produce positive results in a given context, e.g., an area where an oil company could find oil, a compound that, when synthesized, results in a material with required properties, and so on. In many contexts, assessing the Probability of Success (PoS) of prospects heavily depends on experts' knowledge, often leading to biased and inconsistent assessments. We have developed the framework named KARA (Knowledge-augmented Risk Assessment) to address these issues. It combines multiple AI techniques that consider SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) feedback on top of a structured domain knowledge-base to support risk assessment processes of prospect candidates in knowledge-intensive contexts.

Related papers

• Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosure [4.578401882034969]
  We focus on how model performance evaluation may inform or inhibit probing of model limitations, biases, and other risks. Our findings can inform AI providers and legal scholars in designing interventions and policies that preserve open-source innovation while incentivizing ethical uptake.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T19:09:40Z)
• Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA [52.557503571760215]
  We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. We conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:23:43Z)
• Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations [0.0]
  This paper asks whether evaluations significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and our ability to mitigate those risks. It concludes with considerations for improving evaluation practices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators, and academic researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:42:51Z)
• Privacy Risks of General-Purpose AI Systems: A Foundation for Investigating Practitioner Perspectives [47.17703009473386]
  Powerful AI models have led to impressive leaps in performance across a wide range of tasks. Privacy concerns have led to a wealth of literature covering various privacy risks and vulnerabilities of AI models. We conduct a systematic review of these survey papers to provide a concise and usable overview of privacy risks in GPAIS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T07:49:48Z)
• Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges [9.262092738841979]
  AI-based systems are increasingly being leveraged to provide value to organizations, individuals, and society. Risks have led to proposed regulations, litigation, and general societal concerns. This paper explores the concept of a quantitative AI Risk Assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T21:47:25Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Action Quality Assessment [67.20617610820857]
  We propose a novel probabilistic model, named Uncertainty-Driven AQA (UD-AQA), to capture the diversity among multiple judge scores. We generate the estimation of uncertainty for each prediction, which is employed to re-weight AQA regression loss. Our proposed method achieves competitive results on three benchmarks including the Olympic events MTL-AQA and FineDiving, and the surgical skill JIGSAWS datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-29T07:21:15Z)
• A Unified End-to-End Retriever-Reader Framework for Knowledge-based VQA [67.75989848202343]
  This paper presents a unified end-to-end retriever-reader framework towards knowledge-based VQA. We shed light on the multi-modal implicit knowledge from vision-language pre-training models to mine its potential in knowledge reasoning. Our scheme is able to not only provide guidance for knowledge retrieval, but also drop these instances potentially error-prone towards question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-30T02:35:04Z)
• A Survey of Risk-Aware Multi-Armed Bandits [84.67376599822569]
  We review various risk measures of interest, and comment on their properties. We consider algorithms for the regret minimization setting, where the exploration-exploitation trade-off manifests. We conclude by commenting on persisting challenges and fertile areas for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T02:20:34Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• What's a Good Prediction? Challenges in evaluating an agent's knowledge [0.9281671380673306]
  We show the conflict between accuracy and usefulness of general knowledge. We propose an alternate evaluation approach that arises continually in the online continual learning setting. This paper contributes a first look into evaluation of predictions through their use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-23T21:44:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.