Anil Murthy

Subbarao Kambhampati, Karthik Valmeekam, Lin Guan et al.

There is considerable confusion about the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in planning and reasoning tasks. On one side are over-optimistic claims that LLMs can indeed do these tasks with just the right prompting or self-verification strategies. On the other side are perhaps over-pessimistic claims that all that LLMs are good for in planning/reasoning tasks are as mere translators of the problem specification from one syntactic format to another, and ship the problem off to external symbolic solvers. In this position paper, we take the view that both these extremes are misguided. We argue that auto-regressive LLMs cannot, by themselves, do planning or self-verification (which is after all a form of reasoning), and shed some light on the reasons for misunderstandings in the literature. We will also argue that LLMs should be viewed as universal approximate knowledge sources that have much more meaningful roles to play in planning/reasoning tasks beyond simple front-end/back-end format translators. We present a vision of {\bf LLM-Modulo Frameworks} that combine the strengths of LLMs with external model-based verifiers in a tighter bi-directional interaction regime. We will show how the models driving the external verifiers themselves can be acquired with the help of LLMs. We will also argue that rather than simply pipelining LLMs and symbolic components, this LLM-Modulo Framework provides a better neuro-symbolic approach that offers tighter integration between LLMs and symbolic components, and allows extending the scope of model-based planning/reasoning regimes towards more flexible knowledge, problem and preference specifications.

Siddhant Bhambri, Mudit Verma, Upasana Biswas et al.

Preference-based Reinforcement Learning (PbRL) has made significant strides in single-agent settings, but has not been studied for multi-agent frameworks. On the other hand, modeling cooperation between multiple agents, specifically, Human-AI Teaming settings while ensuring successful task completion is a challenging problem. To this end, we perform the first investigation of multi-agent PbRL by extending single-agent PbRL to the two-agent teaming settings and formulate it as a Human-AI PbRL Cooperation Game, where the RL agent queries the human-in-the-loop to elicit task objective and human's preferences on the joint team behavior. Under this game formulation, we first introduce the notion of Human Flexibility to evaluate team performance based on if humans prefer to follow a fixed policy or adapt to the RL agent on the fly. Secondly, we study the RL agent's varying access to the human policy. We highlight a special case along these two dimensions, which we call Specified Orchestration, where the human is least flexible and agent has complete access to human policy. We motivate the need for taking Human Flexibility into account and the usefulness of Specified Orchestration through a gamified user study. We evaluate state-of-the-art PbRL algorithms for Human-AI cooperative setups through robot locomotion based domains that explicitly require forced cooperation. Our findings highlight the challenges associated with PbRL by varying Human Flexibility and agent's access to the human policy. Finally, we draw insights from our user study and empirical results, and conclude that Specified Orchestration can be seen as an upper bound PbRL performance for future research in Human-AI teaming scenarios.