Dynamic graphs are often the initial data for scientific analyses. However, existing methods designed for static graphs struggle with efficiency and accuracy when applied dynamically. One challenge occurs when local interactions in dynamic graphs influence global phenomena. Practitioners then follow the evolution of relationships between individual elements in local structures. Such structures are called Durable Graph Patterns or evolving subgraphs. This work introduces the Durable Graph Pattern Query Language (DPQGL), which allows for user-friendly querying of durable graph patterns on dynamic graphs. DPGQL is, by design, agnostic to the underlying durable pattern-matching algorithm. We base our proposed language on the widely used Cypher Query Language. In our experiments with seven pattern shapes in 24 variations on real-world materials science data, we explore the impact on query runtimes from query complexity and the frequency of graph changes.

As Large Language Models and Natural Language Processing (NLP) technology rapidly develop and spread into daily life, it becomes crucial to anticipate how their use could harm people. One problem that has received a lot of attention in recent years is that this technology has displayed harmful biases, from generating derogatory stereotypes to producing disparate outcomes for different social groups. Although a lot of effort has been invested in assessing and mitigating these biases, our methods of measuring the biases of NLP models have serious problems and it is often unclear what they actually measure. In this paper, we provide an interdisciplinary approach to discussing the issue of NLP model bias by adopting the lens of psychometrics — a field specialized in the measurement of concepts like bias that are not directly observable. In particular, we will explore two central notions from psychometrics, the construct validity and the reliability of measurement tools, and discuss how they can be applied in the context of measuring model bias. Our goal is to provide NLP practitioners with methodological tools for designing better bias measures, and to inspire them more generally to explore tools from psychometrics when working on bias measurement tools. This article appears in the AI & Society track.

Abstract This paper makes a first step towards a logic of learning from experiments. For this, we investigate formal frameworks for modeling the interaction of causal and (qualitative) epistemic reasoning. Crucial for our approach is the idea that the notion of an intervention can be used as a formal expression of a (real or hypothetical) experiment (Pearl, 2009, Causality. Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Woodward, 2003, Making Things Happen, vol. 114 of Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press). In a first step we extend a causal model (Briggs, 2012, Philosophical Studies, 160, 139–166; Galles and Pearl, 1998, An axiomatic characterisation of causal counterfactuals. Foundations of Science, 3, 151–182; Halpern, 2000, Axiomatizing causal reasoning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 12, 317–337; Pearl, 2009, Causality. Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) with a simple Hintikka-style representation of the epistemic state of an agent. In the resulting setting, one can talk about the knowledge of an agent and information update. The resulting logic can model reasoning about thought experiments. However, it is unable to account for learning from experiments, which is clearly brought out by the fact that it validates the principle of no learning for interventions. Therefore, in a second step, we implement a more complex notion of knowledge (Nozick, 1981, Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts) that allows an agent to observe (measure) certain variables when an experiment is carried out. This extended system does allow for learning from experiments. For all the proposed logics, we provide a sound and complete axiomatization.

Simulations let scientists study properties of complex systems. At first sight, data mining is a good choice when evaluating large numbers of simulations. But it is currently unclear whether there are general principles that might guide the deployment of respective methods to simulation data. In other words, is it worthwhile to target at simulation-data science as a distinct subdiscipline of data science? To identify a respective research agenda and to structure the research questions, we conduct a case study from the domain of materials science. One insight that simulation data may be different from other data regarding its structure and quality, which entails focal points different from the ones of conventional data-analysis projects. It also turns out that interpretability and usability are important notions in our context as well. More attention is needed to gather the various meanings of these terms to align them with the needs and priorities of domain scientists. Finally, we propose extensions to our case study which we deem necessary to generalize our insights towards the guidelines envisioned for simulation-data science.