SAP-sLDA: An Interpretable Interface for Exploring Unstructured Text

A common way to explore text corpora is through low-dimensional projections of the documents, where one hopes that thematically similar documents will be clustered together in the projected space. However, popular algorithms for dimensionality reduction of text corpora, like Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), often produce projections that do not capture human notions of document similarity. We propose a semi-supervised human-in-the-loop LDA-based method for learning topics that preserve semantically meaningful relationships between documents in low-dimensional projections. On synthetic corpora, our method yields more interpretable projections than baseline methods with only a fraction of labels provided. On a real corpus, we obtain qualitatively similar results.

On the Effective Horizon of Inverse Reinforcement Learning

Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) algorithms often rely on (forward) reinforcement learning or planning over a given time horizon to compute an approximately optimal policy for a hypothesized reward function and then match this policy with expert demonstrations. The time horizon plays a critical role in determining both the accuracy of reward estimate and the computational efficiency of IRL algorithms. Interestingly, an effective time horizon shorter than the ground-truth value often produces better results faster. This work formally analyzes this phenomenon and provides an explanation: the time horizon controls the complexity of an induced policy class and mitigates overfitting with limited data. This analysis leads to a principled choice of the effective horizon for IRL. It also prompts us to reexamine the classic IRL formulation: it is more natural to learn jointly the reward and the effective horizon together rather than the reward alone with a given horizon. Our experimental results confirm the theoretical analysis.

Towards Regulatable AI Systems: Technical Gaps and Policy Opportunities

There is increasing attention being given to how to regulate AI systems. As governing bodies grapple with what values to encapsulate into regulation, we consider the technical half of the question: To what extent can AI experts vet an AI system for adherence to regulatory requirements? We investigate this question through two public sector procurement checklists, identifying what we can do now, what we should be able to do with technical innovation in AI, and what requirements necessitate a more interdisciplinary approach.

The Unintended Consequences of Discount Regularization: Improving Regularization in Certainty Equivalence Reinforcement Learning

Discount regularization, using a shorter planning horizon when calculating the optimal policy, is a popular choice to restrict planning to a less complex set of policies when estimating an MDP from sparse or noisy data (Jiang et al., 2015). It is commonly understood that discount regularization functions by de-emphasizing or ignoring delayed effects. In this paper, we reveal an alternate view of discount regularization that exposes unintended consequences. We demonstrate that planning under a lower discount factor produces an identical optimal policy to planning using any prior on the transition matrix that has the same distribution for all states and actions. In fact, it functions like a prior with stronger regularization on state-action pairs with more transition data. This leads to poor performance when the transition matrix is estimated from data sets with uneven amounts of data across state-action pairs. Our equivalence theorem leads to an explicit formula to set regularization parameters locally for individual state-action pairs rather than globally. We demonstrate the failures of discount regularization and how we remedy them using our state-action-specific method across simple empirical examples as well as a medical cancer simulator.

Adaptive interventions for both accuracy and time in AI-assisted human decision making

In settings where users are both time-pressured and need high accuracy, such as doctors working in Emergency Rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases accuracy and reduces time. However, different types of AI assistance have different benefits: some reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. We therefore want to adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the question and of the user) in order to best tradeoff our two objectives. We introduce a study where users have to prescribe medicines to aliens, and use it to explore the potential for adapting AI assistance. We find evidence that it is beneficial to adapt our AI assistance depending on the question, leading to good tradeoffs between time taken and accuracy. Future work would consider machine-learning algorithms (such as reinforcement learning) to automatically adapt quickly.

Leveraging Factored Action Spaces for Efficient Offline Reinforcement Learning in Healthcare

Many reinforcement learning (RL) applications have combinatorial action spaces, where each action is a composition of sub-actions. A standard RL approach ignores this inherent factorization structure, resulting in a potential failure to make meaningful inferences about rarely observed sub-action combinations; this is particularly problematic for offline settings, where data may be limited. In this work, we propose a form of linear Q-function decomposition induced by factored action spaces. We study the theoretical properties of our approach, identifying scenarios where it is guaranteed to lead to zero bias when used to approximate the Q-function. Outside the regimes with theoretical guarantees, we show that our approach can still be useful because it leads to better sample efficiency without necessarily sacrificing policy optimality, allowing us to achieve a better bias-variance trade-off. Across several offline RL problems using simulators and real-world datasets motivated by healthcare, we demonstrate that incorporating factored action spaces into value-based RL can result in better-performing policies. Our approach can help an agent make more accurate inferences within underexplored regions of the state-action space when applying RL to observational datasets.

Robust Decision-Focused Learning for Reward Transfer

Decision-focused (DF) model-based reinforcement learning has recently been introduced as a powerful algorithm which can focus on learning the MDP dynamics which are most relevant for obtaining high rewards. While this approach increases the performance of agents by focusing the learning towards optimizing for the reward directly, it does so by learning less accurate dynamics (from a MLE standpoint), and may thus be brittle to changes in the reward function. In this work, we develop the robust decision-focused (RDF) algorithm which leverages the non-identifiability of DF solutions to learn models which maximize expected returns while simultaneously learning models which are robust to changes in the reward function. We demonstrate on a variety of toy example and healthcare simulators that RDF significantly increases the robustness of DF to changes in the reward function, without decreasing the overall return the agent obtains.

Modeling Mobile Health Users as Reinforcement Learning Agents

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies empower patients to adopt/maintain healthy behaviors in their daily lives, by providing interventions (e.g. push notifications) tailored to the user's needs. In these settings, without intervention, human decision making may be impaired (e.g. valuing near term pleasure over own long term goals). In this work, we formalize this relationship with a framework in which the user optimizes a (potentially impaired) Markov Decision Process (MDP) and the mHealth agent intervenes on the user's MDP parameters. We show that different types of impairments imply different types of optimal intervention. We also provide analytical and empirical explorations of these differences.

An Empirical Analysis of the Advantages of Finite- v.s. Infinite-Width Bayesian Neural Networks

Comparing Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) with different widths is challenging because, as the width increases, multiple model properties change simultaneously, and, inference in the finite-width case is intractable. In this work, we empirically compare finite- and infinite-width BNNs, and provide quantitative and qualitative explanations for their performance difference. We find that when the model is mis-specified, increasing width can hurt BNN performance. In these cases, we provide evidence that finite-width BNNs generalize better partially due to the properties of their frequency spectrum that allows them to adapt under model mismatch.