Search

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be used to generate guarantees on treatment effects. However, RCTs often spend unnecessary resources exploring sub-optimal treatments, which can reduce the power of treatment guarantees. To address these concerns, we develop a two-stage RCT where, first on a data-driven screening stage, we prune low-impact treatments, while in the second stage, we develop high probability lower bounds on the treatment effect. Unlike existing adaptive RCT frameworks, our method is simple enough to be implemented in scenarios with limited adaptivity. We derive optimal designs for two-stage RCTs and demonstrate how we can implement such designs through sample splitting. Empirically, we demonstrate that two-stage designs improve upon single-stage approaches, especially in scenarios where domain knowledge is available in the form of a prior. Our work is thus, a simple, yet effective, method to estimate high probablility certificates for high performant treatment effects on a RCT.

Restless multi-armed bandits (RMAB) extend multi-armed bandits so pulling an arm impacts future states. Despite the success of RMABs, a key limiting assumption is the separability of rewards into a sum across arms. We address this deficiency by proposing restless-multi-armed bandit with global rewards (RMAB-G), a generalization of RMABs to global non-separable rewards. To solve RMAB-G, we develop the Linear- and Shapley-Whittle indices, which extend Whittle indices from RMABs to RMAB-Gs. We prove approximation bounds but also point out how these indices could fail when reward functions are highly non-linear. To overcome this, we propose two sets of adaptive policies: the first computes indices iteratively, and the second combines indices with Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed policies outperform baselines and index-based policies with synthetic data and real-world data from food rescue., Comment: 27 pages

Concept-based explainability methods provide insight into deep learning systems by constructing explanations using human-understandable concepts. While the literature on human reasoning demonstrates that we exploit relationships between concepts when solving tasks, it is unclear whether concept-based methods incorporate the rich structure of inter-concept relationships. We analyse the concept representations learnt by concept-based models to understand whether these models correctly capture inter-concept relationships. First, we empirically demonstrate that state-of-the-art concept-based models produce representations that lack stability and robustness, and such methods fail to capture inter-concept relationships. Then, we develop a novel algorithm which leverages inter-concept relationships to improve concept intervention accuracy, demonstrating how correctly capturing inter-concept relationships can improve downstream tasks., Comment: Accepted at ICML 2024

Concept-based methods explain model predictions using human-understandable concepts. These models require accurate concept predictors, yet the faithfulness of existing concept predictors to their underlying concepts is unclear. In this paper, we investigate the faithfulness of Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), a popular family of concept-based architectures, by looking at whether they respect "localities" in datasets. Localities involve using only relevant features when predicting a concept's value. When localities are not considered, concepts may be predicted based on spuriously correlated features, degrading performance and robustness. This work examines how CBM predictions change when perturbing model inputs, and reveals that CBMs may not capture localities, even when independent concepts are localised to non-overlapping feature subsets. Our empirical and theoretical results demonstrate that datasets with correlated concepts may lead to accurate but uninterpretable models that fail to learn localities. Overall, we find that CBM interpretability is fragile, as CBMs occasionally rely upon spurious features, necessitating further research into the robustness of concept predictors., Comment: Previous Version Accepted at NeurIPs 23 XAI in Action Workshop

Placing a human in the loop may abate the risks of deploying AI systems in safety-critical settings (e.g., a clinician working with a medical AI system). However, mitigating risks arising from human error and uncertainty within such human-AI interactions is an important and understudied issue. In this work, we study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based models, a family of AI systems that enable human feedback via concept interventions where an expert intervenes on human-interpretable concepts relevant to the task. Prior work in this space often assumes that humans are oracles who are always certain and correct. Yet, real-world decision-making by humans is prone to occasional mistakes and uncertainty. We study how existing concept-based models deal with uncertain interventions from humans using two novel datasets: UMNIST, a visual dataset with controlled simulated uncertainty based on the MNIST dataset, and CUB-S, a relabeling of the popular CUB concept dataset with rich, densely-annotated soft labels from humans. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses of concept-based systems when handling uncertain interventions. These results allow us to identify several open challenges, which we argue can be tackled through future multidisciplinary research on building interactive uncertainty-aware systems. To facilitate further research, we release a new elicitation platform, UElic, to collect uncertain feedback from humans in collaborative prediction tasks.

The ubiquity of AI leads to situations where humans and AI work together, creating the need for learning-to-defer algorithms that determine how to partition tasks between AI and humans. We work to improve learning-to-defer algorithms when paired with specific individuals by incorporating two fine-tuning algorithms and testing their efficacy using both synthetic and image datasets. We find that fine-tuning can pick up on simple human skill patterns, but struggles with nuance, and we suggest future work that uses robust semi-supervised to improve learning.

Rideshare and ride-pooling platforms use artificial intelligence-based matching algorithms to pair riders and drivers. However, these platforms can induce inequality either through an unequal income distribution or disparate treatment of riders. We investigate two methods to reduce forms of inequality in ride-pooling platforms: (1) incorporating fairness constraints into the objective function and (2) redistributing income to drivers to reduce income fluctuation and inequality. To evaluate our solutions, we use the New York City taxi data set. For the first method, we find that optimizing for driver-side fairness outperforms state-of-the-art models on the number of riders serviced, both in the worst-off neighborhood and overall, showing that optimizing for fairness can assist profitability in certain circumstances. For the second method, we explore income redistribution as a way to combat income inequality by having drivers keep an $r$ fraction of their income, and contributing the rest to a redistribution pool. For certain values of $r$, most drivers earn near their Shapley value, while still incentivizing drivers to maximize value, thereby avoiding the free-rider problem and reducing income variability. The first method can be extended to many definitions of fairness and the second method provably improves fairness without affecting profitability.

You have $m$ muffins and $s$ students. You want to divide the muffins into pieces and give the shares to students such that every student has $\frac{m}{s}$ muffins. Find a divide-and-distribute protocol that maximizes the minimum piece. Let $f(m,s)$ be the minimum piece in the optimal protocol. We prove that $f(m,s)$ exists, is rational, and finding it is computable (though possibly difficult). We show that $f(m,s)$ can be derived from $f(s,m)$; hence we need only consider $m\ge s$. We give a function $FC(m,s)$ such that, for $m\ge s+1$, $f(m,s)\le FC(m,s)$. It is often the case that $f(m,s)=FC(m,s)$. More formally, for all $s$, for all but a finite number of $m$, $f(m,s)=FC(m,s)$. This leads to a nice formula for $f(m,s)$, though there are exceptions to it. We give a formula $INT(m,s)$, which has 6 parts, such that for many of the exceptional $m$, $f(m,s)=INT(m,s)

Assume you an infinite supply of pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters (or some other finite set of denominations which are relatively prime). Let CH(n) be the number of ways to make change of n cents. We present a simple unified exposition of three know theorems about CH(n). Let M be the LCM of a1,...,aL. Let M' be the LCM of the GCD of all pairs of ai's. (1) If 0\le r\le M-1 then CH(n) restricted to n \equiv r mod M is a poly, (2) If 0\le r\le M'-1 then CH(n) restricted to n\equiv r mod M' is a poly except for the constant term, (3) CH(n) is n^{L-1}/(L-1)!a1a2...aL + O(n^{L-2}). Part (3) is known as Schur's theorem.