Alberto Olmo

Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo et al.

Generating plans of action, and reasoning about change have long been considered a core competence of intelligent agents. It is thus no surprise that evaluating the planning and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) has become a hot topic of research. Most claims about LLM planning capabilities are however based on common sense tasks-where it becomes hard to tell whether LLMs are planning or merely retrieving from their vast world knowledge. There is a strong need for systematic and extensible planning benchmarks with sufficient diversity to evaluate whether LLMs have innate planning capabilities. Motivated by this, we propose PlanBench, an extensible benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains used in the automated planning community, especially in the International Planning Competition, to test the capabilities of LLMs in planning or reasoning about actions and change. PlanBench provides sufficient diversity in both the task domains and the specific planning capabilities. Our studies also show that on many critical capabilities-including plan generation-LLM performance falls quite short, even with the SOTA models. PlanBench can thus function as a useful marker of progress of LLMs in planning and reasoning.

Karthik Valmeekam, Sarath Sreedharan, Matthew Marquez et al.

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) how good LLMs are by themselves in generating and validating simple plans in commonsense planning tasks (of the type that humans are generally quite good at) and (2) how good LLMs are in being a source of heuristic guidance for other agents--either AI planners or human planners--in their planning tasks. To investigate these questions in a systematic rather than anecdotal manner, we start by developing a benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains employed in the International Planning Competition. On this benchmark, we evaluate LLMs in three modes: autonomous, heuristic and human-in-the-loop. Our results show that LLM's ability to autonomously generate executable plans is quite meager, averaging only about 3% success rate. The heuristic and human-in-the-loop modes show slightly more promise. In addition to these results, we also make our benchmark and evaluation tools available to support investigations by research community.

Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, Subbarao Kambhampati

Operations in many essential industries including finance and banking are often characterized by the need to perform repetitive sequential tasks. Despite their criticality to the business, workflows are rarely fully automated or even formally specified, though there may exist a number of natural language documents describing these procedures for the employees of the company. Plan extraction methods provide us with the possibility of extracting structure plans from such natural language descriptions of the plans/workflows, which could then be leveraged by an automated system. In this paper, we investigate the utility of generalized language models in performing such extractions directly from such texts. Such models have already been shown to be quite effective in multiple translation tasks, and our initial results seem to point to their effectiveness also in the context of plan extractions. Particularly, we show that GPT-3 is able to generate plan extraction results that are comparable to many of the current state of the art plan extraction methods.

Alberto Olmo, Sailik Sengupta, Subbarao Kambhampati

Deep Neural Networks are often brittle on image classification tasks and known to misclassify inputs. While these misclassifications may be inevitable, all failure modes cannot be considered equal. Certain misclassifications (eg. classifying the image of a dog to an airplane) can perplex humans and result in the loss of human trust in the system. Even worse, these errors (eg. a person misclassified as a primate) can have odious societal impacts. Thus, in this work, we aim to reduce inexplicable errors. To address this challenge, we first discuss methods to obtain the class-level semantics that capture the human's expectation ($M^h$) regarding which classes are semantically close {\em vs.} ones that are far away. We show that for popular image benchmarks (like CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ImageNet), class-level semantics can be readily obtained by leveraging either human subject studies or publicly available human-curated knowledge bases. Second, we propose the use of Weighted Loss Functions (WLFs) to penalize misclassifications by the weight of their inexplicability. Finally, we show that training (or fine-tuning) existing classifiers with the proposed methods lead to Deep Neural Networks that have (1) comparable top-1 accuracy, (2) more explicable failure modes on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) test data, and (3) incur significantly less cost in the gathering of additional human labels compared to existing works.

Niharika Jain, Alberto Olmo, Sailik Sengupta et al.

In this paper, we show that popular Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) exacerbate biases along the axes of gender and skin tone when given a skewed distribution of face-shots. While practitioners celebrate synthetic data generation using GANs as an economical way to augment data for training data-hungry machine learning models, it is unclear whether they recognize the perils of such techniques when applied to real world datasets biased along latent dimensions. Specifically, we show that (1) traditional GANs further skew the distribution of a dataset consisting of engineering faculty headshots, generating minority modes less often and of worse quality and (2) image-to-image translation (conditional) GANs also exacerbate biases by lightening skin color of non-white faces and transforming female facial features to be masculine when generating faces of engineering professors. Thus, our study is meant to serve as a cautionary tale.

Sarath Sreedharan, Alberto Olmo, Aditya Prasad Mishra et al.

Designing agents capable of explaining complex sequential decisions remain a significant open problem in automated decision-making. Recently, there has been a lot of interest in developing approaches for generating such explanations for various decision-making paradigms. One such approach has been the idea of {\em explanation as model-reconciliation}. The framework hypothesizes that one of the common reasons for the user's confusion could be the mismatch between the user's model of the task and the one used by the system to generate the decisions. While this is a general framework, most works that have been explicitly built on this explanatory philosophy have focused on settings where the model of user's knowledge is available in a declarative form. Our goal in this paper is to adapt the model reconciliation approach to the cases where such user models are no longer explicitly provided. We present a simple and easy to learn labeling model that can help an explainer decide what information could help achieve model reconciliation between the user and the agent.