-
To Err is Robotic: Rapid Value-Based Trial-and-Error during Deployment
Authors:
Maximilian Du,
Alexander Khazatsky,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Chelsea Finn
Abstract:
When faced with a novel scenario, it can be hard to succeed on the first attempt. In these challenging situations, it is important to know how to retry quickly and meaningfully. Retrying behavior can emerge naturally in robots trained on diverse data, but such robot policies will typically only exhibit undirected retrying behavior and may not terminate a suboptimal approach before an unrecoverable…
▽ More
When faced with a novel scenario, it can be hard to succeed on the first attempt. In these challenging situations, it is important to know how to retry quickly and meaningfully. Retrying behavior can emerge naturally in robots trained on diverse data, but such robot policies will typically only exhibit undirected retrying behavior and may not terminate a suboptimal approach before an unrecoverable mistake. We can improve these robot policies by instilling an explicit ability to try, evaluate, and retry a diverse range of strategies. We introduce Bellman-Guided Retrials, an algorithm that works on top of a base robot policy by monitoring the robot's progress, detecting when a change of plan is needed, and adapting the executed strategy until the robot succeeds. We start with a base policy trained on expert demonstrations of a variety of scenarios. Then, using the same expert demonstrations, we train a value function to estimate task completion. During test time, we use the value function to compare our expected rate of progress to our achieved rate of progress. If our current strategy fails to make progress at a reasonable rate, we recover the robot and sample a new strategy from the base policy while skewing it away from behaviors that have recently failed. We evaluate our method on simulated and real-world environments that contain a diverse suite of scenarios. We find that Bellman-Guided Retrials increases the average absolute success rates of base policies by more than 20% in simulation and 50% in real-world experiments, demonstrating a promising framework for instilling existing trained policies with explicit trial and error capabilities. For evaluation videos and other documentation, go to https://sites.google.com/view/to-err-robotic/home
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Self-Supervised Alignment with Mutual Information: Learning to Follow Principles without Preference Labels
Authors:
Jan-Philipp Fränken,
Eric Zelikman,
Rafael Rafailov,
Kanishk Gandhi,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Noah D. Goodman
Abstract:
When prompting a language model (LM), users often expect the model to adhere to a set of behavioral principles across diverse tasks, such as producing insightful content while avoiding harmful or biased language. Instilling such principles (i.e., a constitution) into a model is resource-intensive, technically challenging, and generally requires human preference labels or examples. We introduce SAM…
▽ More
When prompting a language model (LM), users often expect the model to adhere to a set of behavioral principles across diverse tasks, such as producing insightful content while avoiding harmful or biased language. Instilling such principles (i.e., a constitution) into a model is resource-intensive, technically challenging, and generally requires human preference labels or examples. We introduce SAMI, an iterative algorithm that finetunes a pretrained language model (without requiring preference labels or demonstrations) to increase the conditional mutual information between constitutions and self-generated responses given queries from a dataset. On single-turn dialogue and summarization, a SAMI-trained mistral-7b outperforms the initial pretrained model, with win rates between 66% and 77%. Strikingly, it also surpasses an instruction-finetuned baseline (mistral-7b-instruct) with win rates between 55% and 57% on single-turn dialogue. SAMI requires a model that writes the principles. To avoid dependence on strong models for writing principles, we align a strong pretrained model (mixtral-8x7b) using constitutions written by a weak instruction-finetuned model (mistral-7b-instruct), achieving a 65% win rate on summarization. Finally, we investigate whether SAMI generalizes to diverse summarization principles (e.g., "summaries should be scientific") and scales to stronger models (llama3-70b), finding that it achieves win rates of up to 68% for learned and 67% for held-out principles compared to the base model. Our results show that a pretrained LM can learn to follow constitutions without using preference labels, demonstrations, or human oversight.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2024; v1 submitted 22 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Procedural Dilemma Generation for Evaluating Moral Reasoning in Humans and Language Models
Authors:
Jan-Philipp Fränken,
Kanishk Gandhi,
Tori Qiu,
Ayesha Khawaja,
Noah D. Goodman,
Tobias Gerstenberg
Abstract:
As AI systems like language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes affecting people's lives, it's critical to ensure that these systems have sound moral reasoning. To test whether they do, we need to develop systematic evaluations. We provide a framework that uses a language model to translate causal graphs that capture key aspects of moral dilemmas into prompt templates…
▽ More
As AI systems like language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes affecting people's lives, it's critical to ensure that these systems have sound moral reasoning. To test whether they do, we need to develop systematic evaluations. We provide a framework that uses a language model to translate causal graphs that capture key aspects of moral dilemmas into prompt templates. With this framework, we procedurally generated a large and diverse set of moral dilemmas -- the OffTheRails benchmark -- consisting of 50 scenarios and 400 unique test items. We collected moral permissibility and intention judgments from human participants for a subset of our items and compared these judgments to those from two language models (GPT-4 and Claude-2) across eight conditions. We find that moral dilemmas in which the harm is a necessary means (as compared to a side effect) resulted in lower permissibility and higher intention ratings for both participants and language models. The same pattern was observed for evitable versus inevitable harmful outcomes. However, there was no clear effect of whether the harm resulted from an agent's action versus from having omitted to act. We discuss limitations of our prompt generation pipeline and opportunities for improving scenarios to increase the strength of experimental effects.
△ Less
Submitted 16 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
STaR-GATE: Teaching Language Models to Ask Clarifying Questions
Authors:
Chinmaya Andukuri,
Jan-Philipp Fränken,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Noah D. Goodman
Abstract:
When prompting language models to complete a task, users often leave important aspects unsaid. While asking questions could resolve this ambiguity (GATE; Li et al., 2023), models often struggle to ask good questions. We explore a language model's ability to self-improve (STaR; Zelikman et al., 2022) by rewarding the model for generating useful questions-a simple method we dub STaR-GATE. We generat…
▽ More
When prompting language models to complete a task, users often leave important aspects unsaid. While asking questions could resolve this ambiguity (GATE; Li et al., 2023), models often struggle to ask good questions. We explore a language model's ability to self-improve (STaR; Zelikman et al., 2022) by rewarding the model for generating useful questions-a simple method we dub STaR-GATE. We generate a synthetic dataset of 25,500 unique persona-task prompts to simulate conversations between a pretrained language model-the Questioner-and a Roleplayer whose preferences are unknown to the Questioner. By asking questions, the Questioner elicits preferences from the Roleplayer. The Questioner is iteratively finetuned on questions that increase the probability of high-quality responses to the task, which are generated by an Oracle with access to the Roleplayer's latent preferences. After two iterations of self-improvement, the Questioner asks better questions, allowing it to generate responses that are preferred over responses from the initial model on 72% of tasks. Our results indicate that teaching a language model to ask better questions leads to better personalized responses.
△ Less
Submitted 29 March, 2024; v1 submitted 28 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks
Authors:
Allen Nie,
Yuhui Zhang,
Atharva Amdekar,
Chris Piech,
Tatsunori Hashimoto,
Tobias Gerstenberg
Abstract:
Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people…
▽ More
Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable. We collected a dataset of stories from 24 cognitive science papers and developed a system to annotate each story with the factors they investigated. Using this dataset, we test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with those of human participants. On the aggregate level, alignment has improved with more recent LLMs. However, using statistical analyses, we find that LLMs weigh the different factors quite differently from human participants. These results show how curated, challenge datasets combined with insights from cognitive science can help us go beyond comparisons based merely on aggregate metrics: we uncover LLMs implicit tendencies and show to what extent these align with human intuitions.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2023; v1 submitted 30 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Social Contract AI: Aligning AI Assistants with Implicit Group Norms
Authors:
Jan-Philipp Fränken,
Sam Kwok,
Peixuan Ye,
Kanishk Gandhi,
Dilip Arumugam,
Jared Moore,
Alex Tamkin,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Noah D. Goodman
Abstract:
We explore the idea of aligning an AI assistant by inverting a model of users' (unknown) preferences from observed interactions. To validate our proposal, we run proof-of-concept simulations in the economic ultimatum game, formalizing user preferences as policies that guide the actions of simulated players. We find that the AI assistant accurately aligns its behavior to match standard policies fro…
▽ More
We explore the idea of aligning an AI assistant by inverting a model of users' (unknown) preferences from observed interactions. To validate our proposal, we run proof-of-concept simulations in the economic ultimatum game, formalizing user preferences as policies that guide the actions of simulated players. We find that the AI assistant accurately aligns its behavior to match standard policies from the economic literature (e.g., selfish, altruistic). However, the assistant's learned policies lack robustness and exhibit limited generalization in an out-of-distribution setting when confronted with a currency (e.g., grams of medicine) that was not included in the assistant's training distribution. Additionally, we find that when there is inconsistency in the relationship between language use and an unknown policy (e.g., an altruistic policy combined with rude language), the assistant's learning of the policy is slowed. Overall, our preliminary results suggest that developing simulation frameworks in which AI assistants need to infer preferences from diverse users can provide a valuable approach for studying practical alignment questions.
△ Less
Submitted 3 December, 2023; v1 submitted 26 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models
Authors:
Kanishk Gandhi,
Jan-Philipp Fränken,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Noah D. Goodman
Abstract:
As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives, understanding their ability to comprehend human mental states becomes critical for ensuring effective interactions. However, despite the recent attempts to assess the Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities of LLMs, the degree to which these models can align with human ToM remains a nuanced topic of explora…
▽ More
As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives, understanding their ability to comprehend human mental states becomes critical for ensuring effective interactions. However, despite the recent attempts to assess the Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities of LLMs, the degree to which these models can align with human ToM remains a nuanced topic of exploration. This is primarily due to two distinct challenges: (1) the presence of inconsistent results from previous evaluations, and (2) concerns surrounding the validity of existing evaluation methodologies. To address these challenges, we present a novel framework for procedurally generating evaluations with LLMs by populating causal templates. Using our framework, we create a new social reasoning benchmark (BigToM) for LLMs which consists of 25 controls and 5,000 model-written evaluations. We find that human participants rate the quality of our benchmark higher than previous crowd-sourced evaluations and comparable to expert-written evaluations. Using BigToM, we evaluate the social reasoning capabilities of a variety of LLMs and compare model performances with human performance. Our results suggest that GPT4 has ToM capabilities that mirror human inference patterns, though less reliable, while other LLMs struggle.
△ Less
Submitted 4 December, 2023; v1 submitted 21 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making
Authors:
Helena Vasconcelos,
Matthew Jörke,
Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Michael Bernstein,
Ranjay Krishna
Abstract:
Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibr…
▽ More
Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.
△ Less
Submitted 26 January, 2023; v1 submitted 13 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Authors:
Aarohi Srivastava,
Abhinav Rastogi,
Abhishek Rao,
Abu Awal Md Shoeb,
Abubakar Abid,
Adam Fisch,
Adam R. Brown,
Adam Santoro,
Aditya Gupta,
Adrià Garriga-Alonso,
Agnieszka Kluska,
Aitor Lewkowycz,
Akshat Agarwal,
Alethea Power,
Alex Ray,
Alex Warstadt,
Alexander W. Kocurek,
Ali Safaya,
Ali Tazarv,
Alice Xiang,
Alicia Parrish,
Allen Nie,
Aman Hussain,
Amanda Askell,
Amanda Dsouza
, et al. (426 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-futur…
▽ More
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2023; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Uncalibrated Models Can Improve Human-AI Collaboration
Authors:
Kailas Vodrahalli,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
James Zou
Abstract:
In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests…
▽ More
In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions. This enables us to explicitly estimate how to transform the AI's prediction confidence, making the AI uncalibrated, in order to improve the final human prediction. We empirically validate our results across four different tasks--dealing with images, text and tabular data--involving hundreds of human participants. We further support our findings with simulation analysis. Our findings suggest the importance of jointly optimizing the human-AI system as opposed to the standard paradigm of optimizing the AI model alone.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2022; v1 submitted 11 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Do Humans Trust Advice More if it Comes from AI? An Analysis of Human-AI Interactions
Authors:
Kailas Vodrahalli,
Roxana Daneshjou,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
James Zou
Abstract:
In decision support applications of AI, the AI algorithm's output is framed as a suggestion to a human user. The user may ignore this advice or take it into consideration to modify their decision. With the increasing prevalence of such human-AI interactions, it is important to understand how users react to AI advice. In this paper, we recruited over 1100 crowdworkers to characterize how humans use…
▽ More
In decision support applications of AI, the AI algorithm's output is framed as a suggestion to a human user. The user may ignore this advice or take it into consideration to modify their decision. With the increasing prevalence of such human-AI interactions, it is important to understand how users react to AI advice. In this paper, we recruited over 1100 crowdworkers to characterize how humans use AI suggestions relative to equivalent suggestions from a group of peer humans across several experimental settings. We find that participants' beliefs about how human versus AI performance on a given task affects whether they heed the advice. When participants do heed the advice, they use it similarly for human and AI suggestions. Based on these results, we propose a two-stage, "activation-integration" model for human behavior and use it to characterize the factors that affect human-AI interactions.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2022; v1 submitted 14 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Explaining intuitive difficulty judgments by modeling physical effort and risk
Authors:
Ilker Yildirim,
Basil Saeed,
Grace Bennett-Pierre,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Joshua Tenenbaum,
Hyowon Gweon
Abstract:
The ability to estimate task difficulty is critical for many real-world decisions such as setting appropriate goals for ourselves or appreciating others' accomplishments. Here we give a computational account of how humans judge the difficulty of a range of physical construction tasks (e.g., moving 10 loose blocks from their initial configuration to their target configuration, such as a vertical to…
▽ More
The ability to estimate task difficulty is critical for many real-world decisions such as setting appropriate goals for ourselves or appreciating others' accomplishments. Here we give a computational account of how humans judge the difficulty of a range of physical construction tasks (e.g., moving 10 loose blocks from their initial configuration to their target configuration, such as a vertical tower) by quantifying two key factors that influence construction difficulty: physical effort and physical risk. Physical effort captures the minimal work needed to transport all objects to their final positions, and is computed using a hybrid task-and-motion planner. Physical risk corresponds to stability of the structure, and is computed using noisy physics simulations to capture the costs for precision (e.g., attention, coordination, fine motor movements) required for success. We show that the full effort-risk model captures human estimates of difficulty and construction time better than either component alone.
△ Less
Submitted 14 May, 2019; v1 submitted 11 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
-
Physical problem solving: Joint planning with symbolic, geometric, and dynamic constraints
Authors:
Ilker Yildirim,
Tobias Gerstenberg,
Basil Saeed,
Marc Toussaint,
Josh Tenenbaum
Abstract:
In this paper, we present a new task that investigates how people interact with and make judgments about towers of blocks. In Experiment~1, participants in the lab solved a series of problems in which they had to re-configure three blocks from an initial to a final configuration. We recorded whether they used one hand or two hands to do so. In Experiment~2, we asked participants online to judge wh…
▽ More
In this paper, we present a new task that investigates how people interact with and make judgments about towers of blocks. In Experiment~1, participants in the lab solved a series of problems in which they had to re-configure three blocks from an initial to a final configuration. We recorded whether they used one hand or two hands to do so. In Experiment~2, we asked participants online to judge whether they think the person in the lab used one or two hands. The results revealed a close correspondence between participants' actions in the lab, and the mental simulations of participants online. To explain participants' actions and mental simulations, we develop a model that plans over a symbolic representation of the situation, executes the plan using a geometric solver, and checks the plan's feasibility by taking into account the physical constraints of the scene. Our model explains participants' actions and judgments to a high degree of quantitative accuracy.
△ Less
Submitted 25 July, 2017;
originally announced July 2017.
