Daniel Martín

Letian Chen, Sravan Jayanthi, Rohan Paleja et al.

Learning from Demonstration (LfD) approaches empower end-users to teach robots novel tasks via demonstrations of the desired behaviors, democratizing access to robotics. However, current LfD frameworks are not capable of fast adaptation to heterogeneous human demonstrations nor the large-scale deployment in ubiquitous robotics applications. In this paper, we propose a novel LfD framework, Fast Lifelong Adaptive Inverse Reinforcement learning (FLAIR). Our approach (1) leverages learned strategies to construct policy mixtures for fast adaptation to new demonstrations, allowing for quick end-user personalization, (2) distills common knowledge across demonstrations, achieving accurate task inference; and (3) expands its model only when needed in lifelong deployments, maintaining a concise set of prototypical strategies that can approximate all behaviors via policy mixtures. We empirically validate that FLAIR achieves adaptability (i.e., the robot adapts to heterogeneous, user-specific task preferences), efficiency (i.e., the robot achieves sample-efficient adaptation), and scalability (i.e., the model grows sublinearly with the number of demonstrations while maintaining high performance). FLAIR surpasses benchmarks across three control tasks with an average 57% improvement in policy returns and an average 78% fewer episodes required for demonstration modeling using policy mixtures. Finally, we demonstrate the success of FLAIR in a table tennis task and find users rate FLAIR as having higher task (p<.05) and personalization (p<.05) performance.

Andrew Caplin, Daniel Martin, Philip Marx

A much studied issue is the extent to which the confidence scores provided by machine learning algorithms are calibrated to ground truth probabilities. Our starting point is that calibration is seemingly incompatible with class weighting, a technique often employed when one class is less common (class imbalance) or with the hope of achieving some external objective (cost-sensitive learning). We provide a model-based explanation for this incompatibility and use our anthropomorphic model to generate a simple method of recovering likelihoods from an algorithm that is miscalibrated due to class weighting. We validate this approach in the binary pneumonia detection task of Rajpurkar, Irvin, Zhu, et al. (2017).

David Autor, Andrew Caplin, Daniel Martin et al.

The cost of error in many high-stakes settings is asymmetric: misdiagnosing pneumonia when absent is an inconvenience, but failing to detect it when present can be life-threatening. Because of this, artificial intelligence (AI) models used to assist such decisions are frequently trained with asymmetric loss functions that incorporate human decision-makers' trade-offs between false positives and false negatives. In two focal applications, we show that this standard alignment practice can backfire. In both cases, it would be better to train the machine learning model with a loss function that ignores the human's objective and then adjust predictions ex post according to that objective. We rationalize this result using an economic model of incentive design with endogenous information acquisition. The key insight from our theoretical framework is that machine classifiers perform not one but two incentivized tasks: choosing how to classify and learning how to classify. We show that while the adjustments engineers use correctly incentivize choosing, they can simultaneously reduce the incentives to learn. Our formal treatment of the problem reveals that methods embraced for their intuitive appeal can in fact misalign human and machine objectives in predictable ways.