Model-based Offline Reinforcement Learning with Local Misspecification

We present a model-based offline reinforcement learning policy performance lower bound that explicitly captures dynamics model misspecification and distribution mismatch and we propose an empirical algorithm for optimal offline policy selection. Theoretically, we prove a novel safe policy improvement theorem by establishing pessimism approximations to the value function. Our key insight is to jointly consider selecting over dynamics models and policies: as long as a dynamics model can accurately represent the dynamics of the state-action pairs visited by a given policy, it is possible to approximate the value of that particular policy. We analyze our lower bound in the LQR setting and also show competitive performance to previous lower bounds on policy selection across a set of D4RL tasks.

Giving Feedback on Interactive Student Programs with Meta-Exploration

Developing interactive software, such as websites or games, is a particularly engaging way to learn computer science. However, teaching and giving feedback on such software is time-consuming -- standard approaches require instructors to manually grade student-implemented interactive programs. As a result, online platforms that serve millions, like Code.org, are unable to provide any feedback on assignments for implementing interactive programs, which critically hinders students' ability to learn. One approach toward automatic grading is to learn an agent that interacts with a student's program and explores states indicative of errors via reinforcement learning. However, existing work on this approach only provides binary feedback of whether a program is correct or not, while students require finer-grained feedback on the specific errors in their programs to understand their mistakes. In this work, we show that exploring to discover errors can be cast as a meta-exploration problem. This enables us to construct a principled objective for discovering errors and an algorithm for optimizing this objective, which provides fine-grained feedback. We evaluate our approach on a set of over 700K real anonymized student programs from a Code.org interactive assignment. Our approach provides feedback with 94.3% accuracy, improving over existing approaches by 17.7% and coming within 1.5% of human-level accuracy. Project web page: https://ezliu.github.io/dreamgrader.

Oracle Inequalities for Model Selection in Offline Reinforcement Learning

In offline reinforcement learning (RL), a learner leverages prior logged data to learn a good policy without interacting with the environment. A major challenge in applying such methods in practice is the lack of both theoretically principled and practical tools for model selection and evaluation. To address this, we study the problem of model selection in offline RL with value function approximation. The learner is given a nested sequence of model classes to minimize squared Bellman error and must select among these to achieve a balance between approximation and estimation error of the classes. We propose the first model selection algorithm for offline RL that achieves minimax rate-optimal oracle inequalities up to logarithmic factors. The algorithm, ModBE, takes as input a collection of candidate model classes and a generic base offline RL algorithm. By successively eliminating model classes using a novel one-sided generalization test, ModBE returns a policy with regret scaling with the complexity of the minimally complete model class. In addition to its theoretical guarantees, it is conceptually simple and computationally efficient, amounting to solving a series of square loss regression problems and then comparing relative square loss between classes. We conclude with several numerical simulations showing it is capable of reliably selecting a good model class.

Data-Efficient Pipeline for Offline Reinforcement Learning with Limited Data

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) can be used to improve future performance by leveraging historical data. There exist many different algorithms for offline RL, and it is well recognized that these algorithms, and their hyperparameter settings, can lead to decision policies with substantially differing performance. This prompts the need for pipelines that allow practitioners to systematically perform algorithm-hyperparameter selection for their setting. Critically, in most real-world settings, this pipeline must only involve the use of historical data. Inspired by statistical model selection methods for supervised learning, we introduce a task- and method-agnostic pipeline for automatically training, comparing, selecting, and deploying the best policy when the provided dataset is limited in size. In particular, our work highlights the importance of performing multiple data splits to produce more reliable algorithm-hyperparameter selection. While this is a common approach in supervised learning, to our knowledge, this has not been discussed in detail in the offline RL setting. We show it can have substantial impacts when the dataset is small. Compared to alternate approaches, our proposed pipeline outputs higher-performing deployed policies from a broad range of offline policy learning algorithms and across various simulation domains in healthcare, education, and robotics. This work contributes toward the development of a general-purpose meta-algorithm for automatic algorithm-hyperparameter selection for offline RL.

Offline Policy Optimization with Eligible Actions

Offline policy optimization could have a large impact on many real-world decision-making problems, as online learning may be infeasible in many applications. Importance sampling and its variants are a commonly used type of estimator in offline policy evaluation, and such estimators typically do not require assumptions on the properties and representational capabilities of value function or decision process model function classes. In this paper, we identify an important overfitting phenomenon in optimizing the importance weighted return, in which it may be possible for the learned policy to essentially avoid making aligned decisions for part of the initial state space. We propose an algorithm to avoid this overfitting through a new per-state-neighborhood normalization constraint, and provide a theoretical justification of the proposed algorithm. We also show the limitations of previous attempts to this approach. We test our algorithm in a healthcare-inspired simulator, a logged dataset collected from real hospitals and continuous control tasks. These experiments show the proposed method yields less overfitting and better test performance compared to state-of-the-art batch reinforcement learning algorithms.

Constraint Sampling Reinforcement Learning: Incorporating Expertise For Faster Learning

Online reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are often difficult to deploy in complex human-facing applications as they may learn slowly and have poor early performance. To address this, we introduce a practical algorithm for incorporating human insight to speed learning. Our algorithm, Constraint Sampling Reinforcement Learning (CSRL), incorporates prior domain knowledge as constraints/restrictions on the RL policy. It takes in multiple potential policy constraints to maintain robustness to misspecification of individual constraints while leveraging helpful ones to learn quickly. Given a base RL learning algorithm (ex. UCRL, DQN, Rainbow) we propose an upper confidence with elimination scheme that leverages the relationship between the constraints, and their observed performance, to adaptively switch among them. We instantiate our algorithm with DQN-type algorithms and UCRL as base algorithms, and evaluate our algorithm in four environments, including three simulators based on real data: recommendations, educational activity sequencing, and HIV treatment sequencing. In all cases, CSRL learns a good policy faster than baselines.

Identification of Subgroups With Similar Benefits in Off-Policy Policy Evaluation

Off-policy policy evaluation methods for sequential decision making can be used to help identify if a proposed decision policy is better than a current baseline policy. However, a new decision policy may be better than a baseline policy for some individuals but not others. This has motivated a push towards personalization and accurate per-state estimates of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs). Given the limited data present in many important applications, individual predictions can come at a cost to accuracy and confidence in such predictions. We develop a method to balance the need for personalization with confident predictions by identifying subgroups where it is possible to confidently estimate the expected difference in a new decision policy relative to a baseline. We propose a novel loss function that accounts for uncertainty during the subgroup partitioning phase. In experiments, we show that our method can be used to form accurate predictions of HTEs where other methods struggle.

Evaluating Treatment Prioritization Rules via Rank-Weighted Average Treatment Effects

There are a number of available methods that can be used for choosing whom to prioritize treatment, including ones based on treatment effect estimation, risk scoring, and hand-crafted rules. We propose rank-weighted average treatment effect (RATE) metrics as a simple and general family of metrics for comparing treatment prioritization rules on a level playing field. RATEs are agnostic as to how the prioritization rules were derived, and only assesses them based on how well they succeed in identifying units that benefit the most from treatment. We define a family of RATE estimators and prove a central limit theorem that enables asymptotically exact inference in a wide variety of randomized and observational study settings. We provide justification for the use of bootstrapped confidence intervals and a framework for testing hypotheses about heterogeneity in treatment effectiveness correlated with the prioritization rule. Our definition of the RATE nests a number of existing metrics, including the Qini coefficient, and our analysis directly yields inference methods for these metrics. We demonstrate our approach in examples drawn from both personalized medicine and marketing. In the medical setting, using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD-BP randomized control trials, we find no significant evidence of heterogeneous treatment effects. On the other hand, in a large marketing trial, we find robust evidence of heterogeneity in the treatment effects of some digital advertising campaigns and demonstrate how RATEs can be used to compare targeting rules that prioritize estimated risk vs. those that prioritize estimated treatment benefit.

Play to Grade: Testing Coding Games as Classifying Markov Decision Process

Contemporary coding education often presents students with the task of developing programs that have user interaction and complex dynamic systems, such as mouse based games. While pedagogically compelling, there are no contemporary autonomous methods for providing feedback. Notably, interactive programs are impossible to grade by traditional unit tests. In this paper we formalize the challenge of providing feedback to interactive programs as a task of classifying Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Each student's program fully specifies an MDP where the agent needs to operate and decide, under reasonable generalization, if the dynamics and reward model of the input MDP should be categorized as correct or broken. We demonstrate that by designing a cooperative objective between an agent and an autoregressive model, we can use the agent to sample differential trajectories from the input MDP that allows a classifier to determine membership: Play to Grade. Our method enables an automatic feedback system for interactive code assignments. We release a dataset of 711,274 anonymized student submissions to a single assignment with hand-coded bug labels to support future research.

Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making

In the dominant paradigm for designing equitable machine learning systems, one works to ensure that model predictions satisfy various fairness criteria, such as parity in error rates across race, gender, and other legally protected traits. That approach, however, typically divorces predictions from the downstream outcomes they ultimately affect, and, as a result, can induce unexpected harms. Here we present an alternative framework for fairness that directly anticipates the consequences of actions. Stakeholders first specify preferences over the possible outcomes of an algorithmically informed decision-making process. For example, lenders may prefer extending credit to those most likely to repay a loan, while also preferring similar lending rates across neighborhoods. One then searches the space of decision policies to maximize the specified utility. We develop and describe a method for efficiently learning these optimal policies from data for a large family of expressive utility functions, facilitating a more holistic approach to equitable decision-making.