Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Abstract: Most exploration research on reinforcement learning (RL) has paid attention to `the way of exploration', which is `how to explore'. The other exploration research, `when to explore', has not been the main focus of RL exploration research. \textcolor{black}{The issue of `when' of a monolithic exploration in the usual RL exploration behaviour binds an exploratory action to an exploitational action of an agent. Recently, a non-monolithic exploration research has emerged to examine the mode-switching exploration behaviour of humans and animals.} The ultimate purpose of our research is to enable an agent to decide when to explore or exploit autonomously. We describe the initial research of an autonomous multi-mode exploration of non-monolithic behaviour in an options framework. The higher performance of our method is shown against the existing non-monolithic exploration method through comparative experimental results.

Abstract: We propose the use of the hypothetical retrospection argumentation procedure, developed by Sven Hansson, to improve existing approaches to machine ethical reasoning by accounting for probability and uncertainty from a position of Philosophy that resonates with humans. Actions are represented with a branching set of potential outcomes, each with a state, utility, and either a numeric or poetic probability estimate. Actions are chosen based on comparisons between sets of arguments favouring actions from the perspective of their branches, even those branches that led to an undesirable outcome. This use of arguments allows a variety of philosophical theories for ethical reasoning to be used, potentially in flexible combination with each other. We implement the procedure, applying consequentialist and deontological ethical theories, independently and concurrently, to an autonomous library system use case. We introduce a a preliminary framework that seems to meet the varied requirements of a machine ethics system: versatility under multiple theories and a resonance with humans that enables transparency and explainability.

Abstract: Experts advising decision-makers are likely to display expertise which varies as a function of the problem instance. In practice, this may lead to sub-optimal or discriminatory decisions against minority cases. In this work we model such changes in depth and breadth of knowledge as a partitioning of the problem space into regions of differing expertise. We provide here new algorithms that explicitly consider and adapt to the relationship between problem instances and experts' knowledge. We first propose and highlight the drawbacks of a naive approach based on nearest neighbor queries. To address these drawbacks we then introduce a novel algorithm - expertise trees - that constructs decision trees enabling the learner to select appropriate models. We provide theoretical insights and empirically validate the improved performance of our novel approach on a range of problems for which existing methods proved to be inadequate.