Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userChallenges for Using Impact Regularizers to Avoid Negative Side Effects
64
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
David Lindner
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Designing reward functions for reinforcement learning is difficult: besides specifying which behavior is rewarded for a task, the reward also has to discourage undesired outcomes. Misspecified reward functions can lead to unintended negative side effects, and overall unsafe behavior. To overcome this problem, recent work proposed to augment the specified reward function with an impact regularizer that discourages behavior that has a big impact on the environment. Although initial results with impact regularizers seem promising in mitigating some types of side effects, important challenges remain. In this paper, we examine the main current challenges of impact regularizers and relate them to fundamental design decisions. We discuss in detail which challenges recent approaches address and which remain unsolved. Finally, we explore promising directions to overcome the unsolved challenges in preventing negative side effects with impact regularizers.
rate research
Read More
Autonomous agents acting in the real-world often operate based on models that ignore certain aspects of the environment. The incompleteness of any given model---handcrafted or machine acquired---is inevitable due to practical limitations of any modeling technique for complex real-world settings. Due to the limited fidelity of its model, an agents actions may have unexpected, undesirable consequences during execution. Learning to recognize and avoid such negative side effects of the agents actions is critical to improving the safety and reliability of autonomous systems. This emerging research topic is attracting increased attention due to the increased deployment of AI systems and their broad societal impacts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of different forms of negative side effects and the recent research efforts to address them. We identify key characteristics of negative side effects, highlight the challenges in avoiding negative side effects, and discuss recently developed approaches, contrasting their benefits and limitations. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and suggestions for future research directions.
We describe lessons learned from developing and deploying machine learning models at scale across the enterprise in a range of financial analytics applications. These lessons are presented in the form of antipatterns. Just as design patterns codify best software engineering practices, antipatterns provide a vocabulary to describe defective practices and methodologies. Here we catalog and document numerous antipatterns in financial ML operations (MLOps). Some antipatterns are due to technical errors, while others are due to not having sufficient knowledge of the surrounding context in which ML results are used. By providing a common vocabulary to discuss these situations, our intent is that antipatterns will support better documentation of issues, rapid communication between stakeholders, and faster resolution of problems. In addition to cataloging antipatterns, we describe solutions, best practices, and future directions toward MLOps maturity.
Designing reward functions is difficult: the designer has to specify what to do (what it means to complete the task) as well as what not to do (side effects that should be avoided while completing the task). To alleviate the burden on the reward designer, we propose an algorithm to automatically generate an auxiliary reward function that penalizes side effects. This auxiliary objective rewards the ability to complete possible future tasks, which decreases if the agent causes side effects during the current task. The future task reward can also give the agent an incentive to interfere with events in the environment that make future tasks less achievable, such as irreversible actions by other agents. To avoid this interference incentive, we introduce a baseline policy that represents a default course of action (such as doing nothing), and use it to filter out future tasks that are not achievable by default. We formally define interference incentives and show that the future task approach with a baseline policy avoids these incentives in the deterministic case. Using gridworld environments that test for side effects and interference, we show that our method avoids interference and is more effective for avoiding side effects than the common approach of penalizing irreversible actions.
Agents operating in unstructured environments often produce negative side effects (NSE), which are difficult to identify at design time. While the agent can learn to mitigate the side effects from human feedback, such feedback is often expensive and the rate of learning is sensitive to the agents state representation. We examine how humans can assist an agent, beyond providing feedback, and exploit their broader scope of knowledge to mitigate the impacts of NSE. We formulate this problem as a human-agent team with decoupled objectives. The agent optimizes its assigned task, during which its actions may produce NSE. The human shapes the environment through minor reconfiguration actions so as to mitigate the impacts of the agents side effects, without affecting the agents ability to complete its assigned task. We present an algorithm to solve this problem and analyze its theoretical properties. Through experiments with human subjects, we assess the willingness of users to perform minor environment modifications to mitigate the impacts of NSE. Empirical evaluation of our approach shows that the proposed framework can successfully mitigate NSE, without affecting the agents ability to complete its assigned task.
We present algorithms for efficiently learning regularizers that improve generalization. Our approach is based on the insight that regularizers can be viewed as upper bounds on the generalization gap, and that reducing the slack in the bound can improve performance on test data. For a broad class of regularizers, the hyperparameters that give the best upper bound can be computed using linear programming. Under certain Bayesian assumptions, solving the LP lets us jump to the optimal hyperparameters given very limited data. This suggests a natural algorithm for tuning regularization hyperparameters, which we show to be effective on both real and synthetic data.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
