Search for: All records

The 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.

System-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.

Homelessness 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.

Leveraging administrative records with machine learning supplements local decision-making and enables ongoing evaluation of data- and equity-driven homeless services.

Community- 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. 

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. Yet obtaining such an action model is a notoriously hard task. This task is even more challenging in mission-critical domains, where a trial-and-error approach to learning how to act is not an option. In such domains, the action model used to generate plans must be safe, in the sense that plans generated with it must be applicable and achieve their goals. Learning safe action models for planning has been recently explored for domains in which states are sufficiently described with Boolean variables. In this work, we go beyond this limitation and propose the NSAM algorithm. NSAM runs in time that is polynomial in the number of observations and, under certain conditions, is guaranteed to return safe action models. We analyze its worst-case sample complexity, which may be intractable for some domains. Empirically, however, NSAM can quickly learn a safe action model that can solve most problems in the domain. 

Group-fair learning methods typically seek to ensure that some measure of prediction efficacy for (often historically) disadvantaged minority groups is comparable to that for the majority of the population. When a principal seeks to adopt a group-fair approach to replace another, the principal may face opposition from those who feel they may be harmed by the switch, and this, in turn, may deter adoption. We propose that a potential mitigation to this concern is to ensure that a group-fair model is also popular, in the sense that, for a majority of the target population, it yields a preferred distribution over outcomes compared with the conventional model. In this paper, we show that state of the art fair learning approaches are often unpopular in this sense. We propose several efficient algorithms for postprocessing an existing group-fair learning scheme to improve its popularity while retaining fairness. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed postprocessing approaches are highly effective in practice. 

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic techniques in general, provide two crucial abilities with the potential to improve decision-making in the context of allocation of scarce societal resources. They have the ability to flexibly and accurately model treatment response at the individual level, potentially allowing us to better match available resources to individuals. In addition, they have the ability to reason simultaneously about the effects of matching sets of scarce resources to populations of individuals. In this work, we leverage these abilities to study algorithmic allocation of scarce societal resources in the context of homelessness. In communities throughout the United States, there is constant demand for an array of homeless services intended to address different levels of need. Allocations of housing services must match households to appropriate services that continuously fluctuate in availability, while inefficiencies in allocation could “waste” scarce resources as households will remain in-need and re-enter the homeless system, increasing the overall demand for homeless services. This complex allocation problem introduces novel technical and ethical challenges. Using administrative data from a regional homeless system, we formulate the problem of “optimal” allocation of resources given data on households with need for homeless services. The optimization problem aims to allocate available resources such that predicted probabilities of household re-entry are minimized. The key element of this work is its use of a counterfactual prediction approach that predicts household probabilities of re-entry into homeless services if assigned to each service. Through these counterfactual predictions, we find that this approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of the homeless system by reducing re-entry, and, therefore, system-wide demand. However, efficiency comes with trade-offs - a significant fraction of households are assigned to services that increase probability of re-entry. To address this issue as well as the inherent fairness considerations present in any context where there are insufficient resources to meet demand, we discuss the efficiency, equity, and fairness issues that arise in our work and consider potential implications for homeless policies.