Daniel S. Weld

Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin, Michelle S. Lam, Ranjay Krishna et al. · uw

LLM chains enable complex tasks by decomposing work into a sequence of subtasks. Similarly, the more established techniques of crowdsourcing workflows decompose complex tasks into smaller tasks for human crowdworkers. Chains address LLM errors analogously to the way crowdsourcing workflows address human error. To characterize opportunities for LLM chaining, we survey 107 papers across the crowdsourcing and chaining literature to construct a design space for chain development. The design space covers a designer's objectives and the tactics used to build workflows. We then surface strategies that mediate how workflows use tactics to achieve objectives. To explore how techniques from crowdsourcing may apply to chaining, we adapt crowdsourcing workflows to implement LLM chains across three case studies: creating a taxonomy, shortening text, and writing a short story. From the design space and our case studies, we identify takeaways for effective chain design and raise implications for future research and development.

Peter Jansen, Oyvind Tafjord, Marissa Radensky et al. · allen-ai

Despite the surge of interest in autonomous scientific discovery (ASD) of software artifacts (e.g., improved ML algorithms), current ASD systems face two key limitations: (1) they largely explore variants of existing codebases or similarly constrained design spaces, and (2) they produce large volumes of research artifacts (such as automatically generated papers and code) that are typically evaluated using conference-style paper review with limited evaluation of code. In this work we introduce CodeScientist, a novel ASD system that frames ideation and experiment construction as a form of genetic search jointly over combinations of research articles and codeblocks defining common actions in a domain (like prompting a language model). We use this paradigm to conduct hundreds of automated experiments on machine-generated ideas broadly in the domain of agents and virtual environments, with the system returning 19 discoveries, 6 of which were judged as being both at least minimally sound and incrementally novel after a multi-faceted evaluation beyond that typically conducted in prior work, including external (conference-style) review, code review, and replication attempts. Moreover, the discoveries span new tasks, agents, metrics, and data, suggesting a qualitative shift from benchmark optimization to broader discoveries.

Gagan Bansal, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Saleema Amershi et al. · microsoft-research

Remarkable advancements in modern generative foundation models have enabled the development of sophisticated and highly capable autonomous agents that can observe their environment, invoke tools, and communicate with other agents to solve problems. Although such agents can communicate with users through natural language, their complexity and wide-ranging failure modes present novel challenges for human-AI interaction. Building on prior research and informed by a communication grounding perspective, we contribute to the study of \emph{human-agent communication} by identifying and analyzing twelve key communication challenges that these systems pose. These include challenges in conveying information from the agent to the user, challenges in enabling the user to convey information to the agent, and overarching challenges that need to be considered across all human-agent communication. We illustrate each challenge through concrete examples and identify open directions of research. Our findings provide insights into critical gaps in human-agent communication research and serve as an urgent call for new design patterns, principles, and guidelines to support transparency and control in these systems.

Gagan Bansal, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar et al.

AI practitioners typically strive to develop the most accurate systems, making an implicit assumption that the AI system will function autonomously. However, in practice, AI systems often are used to provide advice to people in domains ranging from criminal justice and finance to healthcare. In such AI-advised decision making, humans and machines form a team, where the human is responsible for making final decisions. But is the most accurate AI the best teammate? We argue "No" -- predictable performance may be worth a slight sacrifice in AI accuracy. Instead, we argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. To optimize the team performance for this setting we maximize the team's expected utility, expressed in terms of the quality of the final decision, cost of verifying, and individual accuracies of people and machines. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance and show the benefit of modeling teamwork during training through improvements in expected team utility across datasets, considering parameters such as human skill and the cost of mistakes. We discuss the shortcoming of current optimization approaches beyond well-studied loss functions such as log-loss, and encourage future work on AI optimization problems motivated by human-AI collaboration.

Quanze Chen, Jonathan Bragg, Lydia B. Chilton et al.

Traditional approaches for ensuring high quality crowdwork have failed to achieve high-accuracy on difficult problems. Aggregating redundant answers often fails on the hardest problems when the majority is confused. Argumentation has been shown to be effective in mitigating these drawbacks. However, existing argumentation systems only support limited interactions and show workers general justifications, not context-specific arguments targeted to their reasoning. This paper presents Cicero, a new workflow that improves crowd accuracy on difficult tasks by engaging workers in multi-turn, contextual discussions through real-time, synchronous argumentation. Our experiments show that compared to previous argumentation systems which only improve the average individual worker accuracy by 6.8 percentage points on the Relation Extraction domain, our workflow achieves 16.7 percentage point improvement. Furthermore, previous argumentation approaches don't apply to tasks with many possible answers; in contrast, Cicero works well in these cases, raising accuracy from 66.7% to 98.8% on the Codenames domain.

Christopher H. Lin, Mausam, Daniel S. Weld

We present POAPS, a novel planning system for defining Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) that abstracts away from POMDP details for the benefit of non-expert practitioners. POAPS includes an expressive adaptive programming language based on Lisp that has constructs for choice points that can be dynamically optimized. Non-experts can use our language to write adaptive programs that have partially observable components without needing to specify belief/hidden states or reason about probabilities. POAPS is also a compiler that defines and performs the transformation of any program written in our language into a POMDP with control knowledge. We demonstrate the generality and power of POAPS in the rapidly growing domain of human computation by describing its expressiveness and simplicity by writing several POAPS programs for common crowdsourcing tasks.

Raphael Hoffmann, Luke Zettlemoyer, Daniel S. Weld

Information Extraction (IE) aims to automatically generate a large knowledge base from natural language text, but progress remains slow. Supervised learning requires copious human annotation, while unsupervised and weakly supervised approaches do not deliver competitive accuracy. As a result, most fielded applications of IE, as well as the leading TAC-KBP systems, rely on significant amounts of manual engineering. Even "Extreme" methods, such as those reported in Freedman et al. 2011, require about 10 hours of expert labor per relation. This paper shows how to reduce that effort by an order of magnitude. We present a novel system, InstaRead, that streamlines authoring with an ensemble of methods: 1) encoding extraction rules in an expressive and compositional representation, 2) guiding the user to promising rules based on corpus statistics and mined resources, and 3) introducing a new interactive development cycle that provides immediate feedback --- even on large datasets. Experiments show that experts can create quality extractors in under an hour and even NLP novices can author good extractors. These extractors equal or outperform ones obtained by comparably supervised and state-of-the-art distantly supervised approaches.

Peng Dai, Mausam, Daniel Sabby Weld et al.

Value iteration is a powerful yet inefficient algorithm for Markov decision processes (MDPs) because it puts the majority of its effort into backing up the entire state space, which turns out to be unnecessary in many cases. In order to overcome this problem, many approaches have been proposed. Among them, ILAO* and variants of RTDP are state-of-the-art ones. These methods use reachability analysis and heuristic search to avoid some unnecessary backups. However, none of these approaches build the graphical structure of the state transitions in a pre-processing step or use the structural information to systematically decompose a problem, whereby generating an intelligent backup sequence of the state space. In this paper, we present two optimal MDP algorithms. The first algorithm, topological value iteration (TVI), detects the structure of MDPs and backs up states based on topological sequences. It (1) divides an MDP into strongly-connected components (SCCs), and (2) solves these components sequentially. TVI outperforms VI and other state-of-the-art algorithms vastly when an MDP has multiple, close-to-equal-sized SCCs. The second algorithm, focused topological value iteration (FTVI), is an extension of TVI. FTVI restricts its attention to connected components that are relevant for solving the MDP. Specifically, it uses a small amount of heuristic search to eliminate provably sub-optimal actions; this pruning allows FTVI to find smaller connected components, thus running faster. We demonstrate that FTVI outperforms TVI by an order of magnitude, averaged across several domains. Surprisingly, FTVI also significantly outperforms popular heuristically-informed MDP algorithms such as ILAO*, LRTDP, BRTDP and Bayesian-RTDP in many domains, sometimes by as much as two orders of magnitude. Finally, we characterize the type of domains where FTVI excels --- suggesting a way to an informed choice of solver.

Denise L. Draper, Steve Hanks, Daniel Weld

AI planning algorithms have addressed the problem of generating sequences of operators that achieve some input goal, usually assuming that the planning agent has perfect control over and information about the world. Relaxing these assumptions requires an extension to the action representation that allows reasoning both about the changes an action makes and the information it provides. This paper presents an action representation that extends the deterministic STRIPS model, allowing actions to have both causal and informational effects, both of which can be context dependent and noisy. We also demonstrate how a standard least-commitment planning algorithm can be extended to include informational actions and contingent execution.