BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Arnab Sharma

Arnab Sharma contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMachine Learningmath.LO

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Rethinking Explanations: Formalizing Contrast in Description Logics

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Testing Monotonicity of Machine Learning Models

Today, machine learning (ML) models are increasingly applied in decision making. This induces an urgent need for quality assurance of ML models with respect to (often domain-dependent) requirements. Monotonicity is one such requirement. It specifies a software as 'learned' by an ML algorithm to give an increasing prediction with the increase of some attribute values. While there exist multiple ML algorithms for ensuring monotonicity of the generated model, approaches for checking monotonicity, in particular of black-box models, are largely lacking. In this work, we propose verification-based testing of monotonicity, i.e., the formal computation of test inputs on a white-box model via verification technology, and the automatic inference of this approximating white-box model from the black-box model under test. On the white-box model, the space of test inputs can be systematically explored by a directed computation of test cases. The empirical evaluation on 90 black-box models shows verification-based testing can outperform adaptive random testing as well as property-based techniques with respect to effectiveness and efficiency.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access