Implications of Human Irrationality for Reinforcement Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04072v1
• Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 07:44:53 GMT
• Title: Implications of Human Irrationality for Reinforcement Learning
• Authors: Haiyang Chen, Hyung Jin Chang, Andrew Howes
• Abstract summary: We argue that human decision making may be a better source of ideas for constraining how machine learning problems are defined than would otherwise be the case. One promising idea concerns human decision making that is dependent on apparently irrelevant aspects of the choice context. We propose a novel POMDP model for contextual choice tasks and show that, despite the apparent irrationalities, a reinforcement learner can take advantage of the way that humans make decisions.
• Score: 26.76732313120685
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent work in the behavioural sciences has begun to overturn the long-held belief that human decision making is irrational, suboptimal and subject to biases. This turn to the rational suggests that human decision making may be a better source of ideas for constraining how machine learning problems are defined than would otherwise be the case. One promising idea concerns human decision making that is dependent on apparently irrelevant aspects of the choice context. Previous work has shown that by taking into account choice context and making relational observations, people can maximize expected value. Other work has shown that Partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) are a useful way to formulate human-like decision problems. Here, we propose a novel POMDP model for contextual choice tasks and show that, despite the apparent irrationalities, a reinforcement learner can take advantage of the way that humans make decisions. We suggest that human irrationalities may offer a productive source of inspiration for improving the design of AI architectures and machine learning methods.

Related papers

• Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making Skills [24.04643864795939]
  People's decision-making abilities often fail to improve when they rely on AI for decision-support. Most AI systems offer "unilateral" explanations that justify the AI's decision but do not account for users' thinking. We introduce a framework for generating human-centered contrastive explanations that explain the difference between AI's choice and a predicted, likely human choice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:21:04Z)
• Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions [18.27590643693167]
  We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T16:21:37Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• Less Likely Brainstorming: Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses [45.720065723998225]
  We introduce a new task, "less likely brainstorming," that asks a model to generate outputs that humans think are relevant but less likely to happen. We find that a baseline approach of training with less likely hypotheses as targets generates outputs that humans evaluate as either likely or irrelevant nearly half of the time. We propose a controlled text generation method that uses a novel contrastive learning strategy to encourage models to differentiate between generating likely and less likely outputs according to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T18:05:34Z)
• Parametrically Retargetable Decision-Makers Tend To Seek Power [91.93765604105025]
  In fully observable environments, most reward functions have an optimal policy which seeks power by keeping options open and staying alive. We consider a range of models of AI decision-making, from optimal, to random, to choices informed by learning and interacting with an environment. We show that a range of qualitatively dissimilar decision-making procedures incentivize agents to seek power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T17:39:23Z)
• Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
  We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game. We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP. We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Cognitive science as a source of forward and inverse models of human decisions for robotics and control [13.502912109138249]
  We look at how cognitive science can provide forward models of human decision-making. We highlight approaches that synthesize blackbox and theory-driven modeling. We aim to provide readers with a glimpse of the range of frameworks, methodologies, and actionable insights that lie at the intersection of cognitive science and control research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T00:28:28Z)
• Learning the Preferences of Uncertain Humans with Inverse Decision Theory [10.926992035470372]
  We study the setting of inverse decision theory (IDT), a framework where a human is observed making non-sequential binary decisions under uncertainty. In IDT, the human's preferences are conveyed through their loss function, which expresses a tradeoff between different types of mistakes. We show that it is actually easier to identify preferences when the decision problem is more uncertain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-19T00:11:13Z)
• Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
  It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.