user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Feature-directed Active Learning for Learning User Preferences

Paper content:
Learning preferences of users over plan traces can be a challenging task given a large number of features and limited queries that we can ask a single user.
Additionally, the preference function itself can be quite convoluted and non-linear.
Our approach uses feature-directed active learning to gather the necessary information about plan trace preferences.
This data is used to train a simple feedforward neural network to learn preferences over the sequential data.
We evaluate the impact of active learning on the number of traces that are needed to train a model that is accurate and interpretable.
This evaluation is done by comparing the aforementioned feedforward network to a more complex neural network model that uses LSTMs and is trained with a larger dataset without active learning.
When we have a human-in-the-loop during planning, learning that person's preferences over plan traces becomes an important problem.
These preferences can be used to choose a plan from amongst a set of plans that are comparable by the planner's cost metrics.
Such a plan would naturally be more desired by the human.
The user may not like to constantly dictate their preferences, and may not always be in the loop during execution.
Thus, it is important for the user's preference function to be learned well, and for the user to be able to verify them.
For verification, there ought to be a way to interpret how the model's decisions were made, and verify how faithful the learned model is to the user's preferences.A user's preferences function may be quite complex with dependencies over different subsets of features.
The utility of some features maybe non-linear as well.
Such a preference function may require a fair amount of information to approximate.
We cannot expect a single user to give feedback over a large set of traces to get the relevant information.
So Active learning, with a sufficiently expressive user interface for feedback, is essential to minimize queries and redundant information.In this work, our objective was to model the user's preferences over plan traces.
There do exist techniques that efficiently represent and reason about preference relationships.
CP-nets BID1 and Generalized additive independence BID2 ) models are typically used to represent preferences over sets of variables without consideration to the order in which they appear.
While these models can be adapted to handle sequential data, they are not intended for it.
LTL rules, however, can capture trajectory preferences very well and are used in PDDL 3.0 BID3 , and LPP BID0 .
However, it can be very hard for a user to express their preferences in this form.
We discuss existing approaches in more detail and the differences with respect to our work under the related work section.In our approach to learning preferences, we want to efficiently identify the relevant features and the degree to which they affect the preference score of a plan.
We thus employ a feature-directed active learning approach that specifically picks plan traces that are most informative about the feature's effects on preference.
After active learning, we encode a plan trace in terms of the relevant features it contains.
We gather a set of training data from active learning, along with the user's preference score to help train a simple Neural Network (NN) that we call the FeatureNN model.
We use a Neural Network as they can approximate complex functions to a good degree.
Our approach is in one way, related to Generalized Additive Independence in that we try to learn a utility function over pertinent features, but we do not explicitly define or restrict the form of any utility functions.
Rather a simple one hidden-layer feed-forward neural network learns the functions, dependencies, and relative weights over the relevant features.
The FeatureNN then predicts a preference score for each plan reflecting the user's preferences.
We also compare the performance of the FeatureNN to another SequenceNN model that processes sequential data using an LSTM BID6 module.
The SequenceNN is not trained with data from active learning, but with a larger dataset of traces with ratings.
This is to evaluate how efficient our active learning approach is with respect to the number of traces.
Specifically, we compare the number of traces required by SequenceNN and FeatureNN for the same accuracy and interpretability.Neural networks, unlike linear functions, are not as easy to interpret.
Even simple NN with a single hidden layer can be a challenge.
We help the user interpret the decisions of the neural network by showing how the preference score is affected by removing different features of a plan trace.
This is similar to using Saliency Maps BID7 in images to explain what parts of the image contributed to the classification.
In this way, we can explain to the user what plan features contributed to the preference value and by how much.
The difference in preference score should correspond to the user's expectations as per their preference model.
The more similar the effect of changes are to the user's preferences, the more interpretable the NN model is to the user as it approximates well their own preference function.
Such a method of explaining a decision(score) is also related to explaining using counterfactuals BID5 .
Here the counterfactual is the plan trace without a specific feature.
Additionally, when the specific features used to compute preferences comes from the user's feedback (during active learning), this interpretability is obviously improved.We present our work by first defining the problem before delving into the methodology of our approach.
In the Methodology section, we discuss the domain used, the user preference model, and the feature-directed active learning process.
We also discuss the two neural network models used to learn the preference model, viz. the FeatureNN and the SequenceNN models.
Then we present our experimental results in which we compare the two models with respect to their accuracy in predicting the preference score, as well as interpretability.
Lastly, we discuss the results and possible extensions to the work.
Even with as little as 13 features and a relatively uncomplicated preference function, a sufficiently powerful SequenceNN model did not find the underlying preference function.
Instead, it found correlations that predicted the preference score to a very high level of accuracy.
This, unfortunately, makes the model suffer in interpretability.As the number of features increases, the hypothesis space of a NN will increase significantly.
This makes it much more likely for any NN to find spurious correlations, and suffer in interpretability.
So active learning and using a simpler NN becomes very important for learning preferences in plan traces.As for prior feature knowledge, we assumed knowledge about what features were categorical (binary in our experiments) and what features were cardinal.
Rather than assume this knowledge, we can get this from the user as well, and reduce the assumptions about the domain features.
Alternatively, we could have just encoded all features as cardinal features, and let the neural network determine what features were categorical.
While this is certainly possible, we think it better to get this knowledge from the user and encode the plan trace based on this knowledge.
This makes the job of the neural network easier, and less likely to learn spurious correlations.In our current encoding of features in FeatureNN model and our experiments, we have not included a preference dependency that considers the number of steps between features.
For example, I would like to have a donut within 3 plan steps after having a coffee.
This omission was not intentional.
One can easily encode such a sequential feature as a variable as well.
The number of steps between the two (state) features becomes a cardinal variable to represents this sequential feature.
In our approach, we use feature-directed Active Learning complemented with an intuitive and expressive user interface to learn the user's preference function efficiently.
The traces obtained during active learning are rated and annotated by the user.
These traces are encoded as a vector over the features that the user indicated as relevant to their preferences.
The feature vectors are used to train a simple feedforward Neural Network to learn the preference function.
We show that the SimpleNN neural network is more accurate and interpretable with fewer, more informative plan traces as compared to the LSTM based SequenceNN model.
The latter was trained with a larger dataset of rated plan traces without active learning.Our current experiments use a user preference function over only a few variables.
It is important to see how efficiently our framework learns a more complex preference function.
Moreover, the current preference function is completely deterministic as it provides consistent annotation and rating to the plan trace.
A human, however, might not behave in a consistent manner.
We will test with a noisy or probabilistic preference model in future work.The user interface itself can be extended to include more complex annotations.
For example, the user can also provide annotations for some features to be added/dropped from the plan.
This is especially useful for cardinal feature as the modified feature count represents what is ideal to the user.
For example, if the user's preference doesn't increase after visiting more than 2 lakes.
Then this can be communicated by removing extra lake features from a plan trace.We have mentioned categorical and cardinal features, but our framework is also intended to support real-valued features.
We would need to adapt our active learning process to elicit feedback as to what the minimum, optimum and maximum values of such features are.
These would be the minimum essential points to sample for approximating the underlying utility function.Lastly, we would like to simplify the function by which we choose plan traces in successive rounds of active learning.
We think that the similarity with traces from previous rounds is unnecessary, and might not appreciably reduce the cognitive load on the user.
We think that just diversity and selecting traces that are much more preferred(closer to 1.0) or much less preferred(closer to 0.0) would be sufficient.

assistant: text: Learning preferences over plan traces using active learning.