Biblio

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), i.e., the development of more transparent and interpretable AI models, has gained increased traction over the last few years. This is due to the fact that, in conjunction with their growth into powerful and ubiquitous tools, AI models exhibit one detrimental characteristic: a performance-transparency trade-off. This describes the fact that the more complex a model's inner workings, the less clear it is how its predictions or decisions were achieved. But, especially considering Machine Learning (ML) methods like Reinforcement Learning (RL) where the system learns autonomously, the necessity to understand the underlying reasoning for their decisions becomes apparent. Since, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no single work offering an overview of Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) methods, this survey attempts to address this gap. We give a short summary of the problem, a definition of important terms, and offer a classification and assessment of current XRL methods. We found that a) the majority of XRL methods function by mimicking and simplifying a complex model instead of designing an inherently simple one, and b) XRL (and XAI) methods often neglect to consider the human side of the equation, not taking into account research from related fields like psychology or philosophy. Thus, an interdisciplinary effort is needed to adapt the generated explanations to a (non-expert) human user in order to effectively progress in the field of XRL and XAI in general.

Despite the importance of databases in virtually all data driven applications, database forensics is still not the thriving topic it ought to be. Many database management systems (DBMSs) structure the data in the form of trees, most notably B+-Trees. Since the tree structure is depending on the characteristics of the INSERT-order, it can be used in order to generate information on later manipulations, as was shown in a previously published approach. In this work we analyse this approach and investigate, whether it is possible to generalize it to detect DELETE-operations within general INSERT-only trees. We subsequently prove that almost all forms of B+-Trees can be constructed solely by using INSERT-operations, i.e. that this approach cannot be used to prove the existence of DELETE-operations in the past.