Search for: All records

Abstract ObjectiveThe study tests a community- and data-driven approach to homelessness prevention. Federal policies call for efficient and equitable local responses to homelessness. However, the overwhelming demand for limited homeless assistance is challenging without empirically supported decision-making tools and raises questions of whom to serve with scarce resources. Materials and MethodsSystem-wide administrative records capture the delivery of an array of homeless services (prevention, shelter, short-term housing, supportive housing) and whether households reenter the system within 2 years. Counterfactual machine learning identifies which service most likely prevents reentry for each household. Based on community input, predictions are aggregated for subpopulations of interest (race/ethnicity, gender, families, youth, and health conditions) to generate transparent prioritization rules for whom to serve first. Simulations of households entering the system during the study period evaluate whether reallocating services based on prioritization rules compared with services-as-usual. ResultsHomelessness prevention benefited households who could access it, while differential effects exist for homeless households that partially align with community interests. Households with comorbid health conditions avoid homelessness most when provided longer-term supportive housing, and families with children fare best in short-term rentals. No additional differential effects existed for intersectional subgroups. Prioritization rules reduce community-wide homelessness in simulations. Moreover, prioritization mitigated observed reentry disparities for female and unaccompanied youth without excluding Black and families with children. DiscussionLeveraging administrative records with machine learning supplements local decision-making and enables ongoing evaluation of data- and equity-driven homeless services. ConclusionsCommunity- and data-driven prioritization rules more equitably target scarce homeless resources. 

Powerful domain-independent planners have been developed to solve various types of planning problems. These planners often require a model of the acting agent's actions, given in some planning domain description language. Manually designing such an action model is a notoriously challenging task. An alternative is to automatically learn action models from observation. Such an action model is called safe if every plan created with it is consistent with the real, unknown action model. Algorithms for learning such safe action models exist, yet they cannot handle domains with conditional or universal effects, which are common constructs in many planning problems. We prove that learning non-trivial safe action models with conditional effects may require an exponential number of samples. Then, we identify reasonable assumptions under which such learning is tractable and propose Conditional-SAM, the first algorithm capable of doing so. We analyze Conditional-SAM theoretically and evaluate it experimentally. Our results show that the action models learned by Conditional-SAM can be used to solve perfectly most of the test set problems in most of the experimented domains. 

A common approach for solving planning problems is to model them in a formal language such as the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), and then use an appropriate PDDL planner. Several algorithms for learning PDDL models from observations have been proposed but plans created with these learned models may not be sound. We propose two algorithms for learning PDDL models that are guaranteed to be safe to use even when given observations that include partially observable states. We analyze these algorithms theoretically, characterizing the sample complexity each algorithm requires to guarantee probabilistic completeness. We also show experimentally that our algorithms are often better than FAMA, a state-of-the-art PDDL learning algorithm. 

We study the problem of auditing classifiers for statistical subgroup fairness. Kearns et al. [Kearns et al., 2018] showed that the problem of auditing combinatorial subgroups fairness is as hard as agnostic learning. Essentially all work on remedying statistical measures of discrimination against subgroups assumes access to an oracle for this problem, despite the fact that no efficient algorithms are known for it. If we assume the data distribution is Gaussian, or even merely log-concave, then a recent line of work has discovered efficient agnostic learning algorithms for halfspaces. Unfortunately, the reduction of Kearns et al. was formulated in terms of weak, "distribution-free" learning, and thus did not establish a connection for families such as log-concave distributions. In this work, we give positive and negative results on auditing for Gaussian distributions: On the positive side, we present an alternative approach to leverage these advances in agnostic learning and thereby obtain the first polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) for auditing nontrivial combinatorial subgroup fairness: we show how to audit statistical notions of fairness over homogeneous halfspace subgroups when the features are Gaussian. On the negative side, we find that under cryptographic assumptions, no polynomial-time algorithm can guarantee any nontrivial auditing, even under Gaussian feature distributions, for general halfspace subgroups. 

The tension between deduction and induction is perhaps the most fundamental issue in areas such as philosophy, cognition, and artificial intelligence. In an influential paper,Valiantrecognized that the challenge of learning should be integrated with deduction. In particular, he proposed a semantics to capture the quality possessed by the output ofprobably approximately correct(PAC) learning algorithms when formulated in a logic. Although weaker than classical entailment, it allows for a powerful model-theoretic framework for answering queries. In this paper, we provide a new technical foundation to demonstrate PAC learning with multi-agent epistemic logics. To circumvent the negative results in the literature on the difficulty of robust learning with the PAC semantics, we consider so-called implicit learning where we are able to incorporate observations to the background theory in service of deciding the entailment of an epistemic query. We prove correctness of the learning procedure and discuss results on the sample complexity, that is how many observations we will need to provably assert that the query is entailed given a user-specified error bound. Finally, we investigate under what circumstances this algorithm can be made efficient. On the last point, given that reasoning in epistemic logics especially in multi-agent epistemic logics is PSPACE-complete, it might seem like there is no hope for this problem. We leverage some recent results on the so-calledRepresentation Theoremexplored for single-agent and multi-agent epistemic logics with theonly knowingoperator to reduce modal reasoning to propositional reasoning.