Ziyang Guo

Yulin Shao, Yucheng Cai, Taotao Wang et al.

We consider the problem of autonomous channel access (AutoCA), where a group of terminals tries to discover a communication strategy with an access point (AP) via a common wireless channel in a distributed fashion. Due to the irregular topology and the limited communication range of terminals, a practical challenge for AutoCA is the hidden terminal problem, which is notorious in wireless networks for deteriorating the throughput and delay performances. To meet the challenge, this paper presents a new multi-agent deep reinforcement learning paradigm, dubbed MADRL-HT, tailored for AutoCA in the presence of hidden terminals. MADRL-HT exploits topological insights and transforms the observation space of each terminal into a scalable form independent of the number of terminals. To compensate for the partial observability, we put forth a look-back mechanism such that the terminals can infer behaviors of their hidden terminals from the carrier sensed channel states as well as feedback from the AP. A window-based global reward function is proposed, whereby the terminals are instructed to maximize the system throughput while balancing the terminals' transmission opportunities over the course of learning. Extensive numerical experiments verified the superior performance of our solution benchmarked against the legacy carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol.

Ziyang Guo, Yifan Wu, Jason Hartline et al.

Humans frequently make decisions with the aid of artificially intelligent (AI) systems. A common pattern is for the AI to recommend an action to the human who retains control over the final decision. Researchers have identified ensuring that a human has appropriate reliance on an AI as a critical component of achieving complementary performance. We argue that the current definition of appropriate reliance used in such research lacks formal statistical grounding and can lead to contradictions. We propose a formal definition of reliance, based on statistical decision theory, which separates the concepts of reliance as the probability the decision-maker follows the AI's recommendation from challenges a human may face in differentiating the signals and forming accurate beliefs about the situation. Our definition gives rise to a framework that can be used to guide the design and interpretation of studies on human-AI complementarity and reliance. Using recent AI-advised decision making studies from literature, we demonstrate how our framework can be used to separate the loss due to mis-reliance from the loss due to not accurately differentiating the signals. We evaluate these losses by comparing to a baseline and a benchmark for complementary performance defined by the expected payoff achieved by a rational decision-maker facing the same decision task as the behavioral decision-makers.

Ziyang Guo, Yifan Wu, Jason Hartline et al.

Multiple agents are increasingly combined to make decisions with the expectation of achieving complementary performance, where the decisions they make together outperform those made individually. However, knowing how to improve the performance of collaborating agents requires knowing what information and strategies each agent employs. With a focus on human-AI pairings, we contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information. By defining complementary information, our approach identifies opportunities for agents to better exploit available information in AI-assisted decision workflows. We present a novel explanation technique (ILIV-SHAP) that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information. We validate the effectiveness of ACIV and ILIV-SHAP through a study of human-AI decision-making, and demonstrate the framework on examples from chest X-ray diagnosis and deepfake detection. We find that presenting ILIV-SHAP with AI predictions leads to reliably greater reductions in error over non-AI assisted decisions more than vanilla SHAP.

Jessica Hullman, Ziyang Guo, Berk Ustun

Modern methods for explainable machine learning are designed to describe how models map inputs to outputs--without deep consideration of how these explanations will be used in practice. This paper argues that explanations should be designed and evaluated with a specific end in mind. We describe how to formalize this end in a framework based in statistical decision theory. We show how this functionally-grounded approach can be applied across diverse use cases, such as clinical decision support, providing recourse, or debugging. We demonstrate its use to characterize the maximum "boost" in performance on a particular task that an explanation could provide an idealized decision-maker, preventing misuse due to ambiguity by forcing researchers to specify concrete use cases that can be analyzed in light of models of expected explanation use. We argue that evaluation should meld theoretical and empirical perspectives on the value of explanation, and contribute definitions that span these perspectives.

Ziyang Guo, Yifan Wu, Jason Hartline et al.

Humans and AIs are often paired on decision tasks with the expectation of achieving complementary performance -- where the combination of human and AI outperforms either one alone. However, how to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing more about what particular information and strategies each agent employs. In this paper, we propose a model based in statistical decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration from the perspective of what information could be used to improve a human or AI decision. We demonstrate our model on a deepfake detection task to investigate seven video-level features by their unexploited value of information. We compare the human alone, AI alone and human-AI team and offer insights on how the AI assistance impacts people's usage of the information and what information that the AI exploits well might be useful for improving human decisions.