Global explanations of a reinforcement learning (RL) agent's expected behavior can make it safer to deploy. However, such explanations are often difficult to understand because of the complicated nature of many RL policies. Effective human explanations are often contrastive, referencing a known contrast (policy) to reduce redundancy. At the same time, these explanations also require the additional effort of referencing that contrast when evaluating an explanation. We conduct a user study to understand whether and when contrastive explanations might be preferable to complete explanations that do not require referencing a contrast. We find that complete explanations are generally more effective when they are the same size or smaller than a contrastive explanation of the same policy, and no worse when they are larger. This suggests that contrastive explanations are not sufficient to solve the problem of effectively explaining reinforcement learning policies, and require additional careful study for use in this context.
Interpretability provides a means for humans to verify aspects of machine learning (ML) models and empower human+ML teaming in situations where the task cannot be fully automated. Different contexts require explanations with different properties. For example, the kind of explanation required to determine if an early cardiac arrest warning system is ready to be integrated into a care setting is very different from the type of explanation required for a loan applicant to help determine the actions they might need to take to make their application successful. Unfortunately, there is a lack of standardization when it comes to properties of explanations: different papers may use the same term to mean different quantities, and different terms to mean the same quantity. This lack of a standardized terminology and categorization of the properties of ML explanations prevents us from both rigorously comparing interpretable machine learning methods and identifying what properties are needed in what contexts. In this work, we survey properties defined in interpretable machine learning papers, synthesize them based on what they actually measure, and describe the trade-offs between different formulations of these properties. In doing so, we enable more informed selection of task-appropriate formulations of explanation properties as well as standardization for future work in interpretable machine learning.
In September 2021, the "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the second report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Michael Littman of Brown University. The report, entitled "Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms," answers a set of 14 questions probing critical areas of AI development addressing the major risks and dangers of AI, its effects on society, its public perception and the future of the field. The report concludes that AI has made a major leap from the lab to people's lives in recent years, which increases the urgency to understand its potential negative effects. The questions were developed by the AI100 Standing Committee, chaired by Peter Stone of the University of Texas at Austin, consisting of a group of AI leaders with expertise in computer science, sociology, ethics, economics, and other disciplines.
Off-policy Evaluation (OPE) methods are crucial tools for evaluating policies in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, where direct deployment is often infeasible, unethical, or expensive. When deployment environments are expected to undergo changes (that is, dataset shifts), it is important for OPE methods to perform robust evaluation of the policies amidst such changes. Existing approaches consider robustness against a large class of shifts that can arbitrarily change any observable property of the environment. This often results in highly pessimistic estimates of the utilities, thereby invalidating policies that might have been useful in deployment. In this work, we address the aforementioned problem by investigating how domain knowledge can help provide more realistic estimates of the utilities of policies. We leverage human inputs on which aspects of the environments may plausibly change, and adapt the OPE methods to only consider shifts on these aspects. Specifically, we propose a novel framework, Robust OPE (ROPE), which considers shifts on a subset of covariates in the data based on user inputs, and estimates worst-case utility under these shifts. We then develop computationally efficient algorithms for OPE that are robust to the aforementioned shifts for contextual bandits and Markov decision processes. We also theoretically analyze the sample complexity of these algorithms. Extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets from the healthcare domain demonstrates that our approach not only captures realistic dataset shifts accurately, but also results in less pessimistic policy evaluations.
Dental disease is one of the most common chronic diseases despite being largely preventable. However, professional advice on optimal oral hygiene practices is often forgotten or abandoned by patients. Therefore patients may benefit from timely and personalized encouragement to engage in oral self-care behaviors. In this paper, we develop an online reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm for use in optimizing the delivery of mobile-based prompts to encourage oral hygiene behaviors. One of the main challenges in developing such an algorithm is ensuring that the algorithm considers the impact of the current action on the effectiveness of future actions (i.e., delayed effects), especially when the algorithm has been made simple in order to run stably and autonomously in a constrained, real-world setting (i.e., highly noisy, sparse data). We address this challenge by designing a quality reward which maximizes the desired health outcome (i.e., high-quality brushing) while minimizing user burden. We also highlight a procedure for optimizing the hyperparameters of the reward by building a simulation environment test bed and evaluating candidates using the test bed. The RL algorithm discussed in this paper will be deployed in Oralytics, an oral self-care app that provides behavioral strategies to boost patient engagement in oral hygiene practices.
For responsible decision making in safety-critical settings, machine learning models must effectively detect and process edge-case data. Although existing works show that predictive uncertainty is useful for these tasks, it is not evident from literature which uncertainty-aware models are best suited for a given dataset. Thus, we compare six uncertainty-aware deep learning models on a set of edge-case tasks: robustness to adversarial attacks as well as out-of-distribution and adversarial detection. We find that the geometry of the data sub-manifold is an important factor in determining the success of various models. Our finding suggests an interesting direction in the study of uncertainty-aware deep learning models.
In the reinforcement learning literature, there are many algorithms developed for either Contextual Bandit (CB) or Markov Decision Processes (MDP) environments. However, when deploying reinforcement learning algorithms in the real world, even with domain expertise, it is often difficult to know whether it is appropriate to treat a sequential decision making problem as a CB or an MDP. In other words, do actions affect future states, or only the immediate rewards? Making the wrong assumption regarding the nature of the environment can lead to inefficient learning, or even prevent the algorithm from ever learning an optimal policy, even with infinite data. In this work we develop an online algorithm that uses a Bayesian hypothesis testing approach to learn the nature of the environment. Our algorithm allows practitioners to incorporate prior knowledge about whether the environment is that of a CB or an MDP, and effectively interpolate between classical CB and MDP-based algorithms to mitigate against the effects of misspecifying the environment. We perform simulations and demonstrate that in CB settings our algorithm achieves lower regret than MDP-based algorithms, while in non-bandit MDP settings our algorithm is able to learn the optimal policy, often achieving comparable regret to MDP-based algorithms.
We develop a Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework for improving an existing behavior policy via sparse, user-interpretable changes. Our goal is to make minimal changes while gaining as much benefit as possible. We define a minimal change as having a sparse, global contrastive explanation between the original and proposed policy. We improve the current policy with the constraint of keeping that global contrastive explanation short. We demonstrate our framework with a discrete MDP and a continuous 2D navigation domain.
Recent years have seen a surge of interest in the field of explainable AI (XAI), with a plethora of algorithms proposed in the literature. However, a lack of consensus on how to evaluate XAI hinders the advancement of the field. We highlight that XAI is not a monolithic set of technologies -- researchers and practitioners have begun to leverage XAI algorithms to build XAI systems that serve different usage contexts, such as model debugging and decision-support. Algorithmic research of XAI, however, often does not account for these diverse downstream usage contexts, resulting in limited effectiveness or even unintended consequences for actual users, as well as difficulties for practitioners to make technical choices. We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements in these usage contexts. Towards this goal, we introduce a perspective of contextualized XAI evaluation by considering the relative importance of XAI evaluation criteria for prototypical usage contexts of XAI. To explore the context-dependency of XAI evaluation criteria, we conduct two survey studies, one with XAI topical experts and another with crowd workers. Our results urge for responsible AI research with usage-informed evaluation practices, and provide a nuanced understanding of user requirements for XAI in different usage contexts.
Online reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are increasingly used to personalize digital interventions in the fields of mobile health and online education. Common challenges in designing and testing an RL algorithm in these settings include ensuring the RL algorithm can learn and run stably under real-time constraints, and accounting for the complexity of the environment, e.g., a lack of accurate mechanistic models for the user dynamics. To guide how one can tackle these challenges, we extend the PCS (Predictability, Computability, Stability) framework, a data science framework that incorporates best practices from machine learning and statistics in supervised learning (Yu and Kumbier, 2020), to the design of RL algorithms for the digital interventions setting. Further, we provide guidelines on how to design simulation environments, a crucial tool for evaluating RL candidate algorithms using the PCS framework. We illustrate the use of the PCS framework for designing an RL algorithm for Oralytics, a mobile health study aiming to improve users' tooth-brushing behaviors through the personalized delivery of intervention messages. Oralytics will go into the field in late 2022.