Subbarao Kambhampati’s research while affiliated with Arizona State University and other places

Learning to detect, characterize and accommodate novelties is a challenge that agents operating in open-world domains need to address to be able to guarantee satisfactory task performance. Certain novelties (e.g., changes in environment dynamics) can interfere with the performance or prevent agents from accomplishing task goals altogether. In this paper, we introduce general methods and architectural mechanisms for detecting and characterizing different types of novelties, and for building an appropriate adaptive model to accommodate them utilizing logical representations and reasoning methods. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods in evaluations performed by a third party in the adversarial multi-agent board game Monopoly. The results show high novelty detection and accommodation rates across a variety of novelty types, including changes to the rules of the game, as well as changes to the agent's action capabilities.

Preference-based Reinforcement Learning (PbRL) methods utilize binary feedback from the human in the loop (HiL) over queried trajectory pairs to learn a reward model in an attempt to approximate the human's underlying reward function capturing their preferences. In this work, we investigate the issue of a high degree of variability in the initialized reward models which are sensitive to random seeds of the experiment. This further compounds the issue of degenerate reward functions PbRL methods already suffer from. We propose a data-driven reward initialization method that does not add any additional cost to the human in the loop and negligible cost to the PbRL agent and show that doing so ensures that the predicted rewards of the initialized reward model are uniform in the state space and this reduces the variability in the performance of the method across multiple runs and is shown to improve the overall performance compared to other initialization methods.

Preference Based Reinforcement Learning has shown much promise for utilizing human binary feedback on queried trajectory pairs to recover the underlying reward model of the Human in the Loop (HiL). While works have attempted to better utilize the queries made to the human, in this work we make two observations about the unlabeled trajectories collected by the agent and propose two corresponding loss functions that ensure participation of unlabeled trajectories in the reward learning process, and structure the embedding space of the reward model such that it reflects the structure of state space with respect to action distances. We validate the proposed method on one locomotion domain and one robotic manipulation task and compare with the state-of-the-art baseline PEBBLE. We further present an ablation of the proposed loss components across both the domains and find that not only each of the loss components perform better than the baseline, but the synergic combination of the two has much better reward recovery and human feedback sample efficiency.

Reinforcement Learning has suffered from poor reward specification, and issues for reward hacking even in simple enough domains. Preference Based Reinforcement Learning attempts to solve the issue by utilizing binary feedbacks on queried trajectory pairs by a human in the loop indicating their preferences about the agent's behavior to learn a reward model. In this work, we present a state augmentation technique that allows the agent's reward model to be robust and follow an invariance consistency that significantly improved performance, i.e. the reward recovery and subsequent return computed using the learned policy over our baseline PEBBLE. We validate our method on three domains, Mountain Car, a locomotion task of Quadruped-Walk, and a robotic manipulation task of Sweep-Into, and find that using the proposed augmentation the agent not only benefits in the overall performance but does so, quite early in the agent's training phase.

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) how good LLMs are by themselves in generating and validating simple plans in commonsense planning tasks (of the type that humans are generally quite good at) and (2) how good LLMs are in being a source of heuristic guidance for other agents--either AI planners or human planners--in their planning tasks. To investigate these questions in a systematic rather than anecdotal manner, we start by developing a benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains employed in the International Planning Competition. On this benchmark, we evaluate LLMs in three modes: autonomous, heuristic and human-in-the-loop. Our results show that LLM's ability to autonomously generate executable plans is quite meager, averaging only about 3% success rate. The heuristic and human-in-the-loop modes show slightly more promise. In addition to these results, we also make our benchmark and evaluation tools available to support investigations by research community.

Identifying the actual adversarial threat against a system vulnerability has been a long-standing challenge for cybersecurity research. To determine an optimal strategy for the defender, game-theoretic based decision models have been widely used to simulate the real-world attacker-defender scenarios while taking the defender’s constraints into consideration. In this work, we focus on understanding human attacker behaviors in order to optimize the defender’s strategy. To achieve this goal, we model attacker-defender engagements as Markov Games and search for their Bayesian Stackelberg Equilibrium. We validate our modeling approach and report our empirical findings using a Capture-The-Flag (CTF) setup, and we conduct user studies on adversaries with varying skill-levels. Our studies show that application-level deceptions are an optimal mitigation strategy against targeted attacks—outperforming classic cyber-defensive maneuvers, such as patching or blocking network requests. We use this result to further hypothesize over the attacker’s behaviors when trapped in an embedded honeypot environment and present a detailed analysis of the same.

Handling trust is one of the core requirements for facilitating effective interaction between the human and the AI agent. Thus, any decision-making framework designed to work with humans must possess the ability to estimate and leverage human trust. In this paper, we propose a mental model based theory of trust that not only can be used to infer trust, thus providing an alternative to psychological or behavioral trust inference methods, but also can be used as a foundation for any trust-aware decision-making frameworks. First, we introduce what trust means according to our theory and then use the theory to define trust evolution, human reliance and decision making, and a formalization of the appropriate level of trust in the agent. Using human subject studies, we compare our theory against one of the most common trust scales (Muir scale) to evaluate 1) whether the observations from the human studies match our proposed theory and 2) what aspects of trust are more aligned with our proposed theory.

Generating complex behaviors from goals specified by non-expert users is a crucial aspect of intelligent agents. Interactive reward learning from trajectory comparisons is one way to allow non-expert users to convey complex objectives by expressing preferences over short clips of agent behaviors. Even though this method can encode complex tacit knowledge present in the underlying tasks, it implicitly assumes that the human is unable to provide rich-form feedback other than binary preference labels, leading to extremely high feedback complexity and poor user experience. While providing a detailed symbolic specification of the objectives might be tempting, it is not always feasible even for an expert user. However, in most cases, humans are aware of how the agent should change its behavior along meaningful axes to fulfill the underlying purpose, even if they are not able to fully specify task objectives symbolically. Using this as motivation, we introduce the notion of Relative Behavioral Attributes, which acts as a middle ground, between exact goal specification and reward learning purely from preference labels, by enabling the users to tweak the agent's behavior through nameable concepts (e.g., increasing the softness of the movement of a two-legged "sneaky" agent). We propose two different parametric methods that can potentially encode any kind of behavioral attributes from ordered behavior clips. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods on 4 tasks with 9 different behavioral attributes and show that once the attributes are learned, end users can effortlessly produce desirable agent behaviors, by providing feedback just around 10 times. The feedback complexity of our approach is over 10 times less than the learning-from-human-preferences baseline and this demonstrates that our approach is readily applicable in real-world applications.

Identifying the actual adversarial threat against a system vulnerability has been a long-standing challenge for cybersecurity research. To determine an optimal strategy for the defender, game-theoretic based decision models have been widely used to simulate the real-world attacker-defender scenarios while taking the defender's constraints into consideration. In this work, we focus on understanding human attacker behaviors in order to optimize the defender's strategy. To achieve this goal, we model attacker-defender engagements as Markov Games and search for their Bayesian Stackelberg Equilibrium. We validate our modeling approach and report our empirical findings using a Capture-The-Flag (CTF) setup, and we conduct user studies on adversaries with varying skill-levels. Our studies show that application-level deceptions are an optimal mitigation strategy against targeted attacks -- outperforming classic cyber-defensive maneuvers, such as patching or blocking network requests. We use this result to further hypothesize over the attacker's behaviors when trapped in an embedded honeypot environment and present a detailed analysis of the same.

There is a growing interest in developing automated agents that can work alongside humans. In addition to completing the assigned task, such an agent will undoubtedly be expected to behave in a manner that is preferred by the human. This requires the human to communicate their preferences to the agent. To achieve this, the current approaches either require the users to specify the reward function or the preference is interactively learned from queries that ask the user to compare trajectories. The former approach can be challenging if the internal representation used by the agent is inscrutable to the human while the latter is unnecessarily cumbersome for the user if their preference can be specified more easily in symbolic terms. In this work, we propose PRESCA (PREference Specification through Concept Acquisition), a system that allows users to specify their preferences in terms of concepts that they understand. PRESCA maintains a set of such concepts in a shared vocabulary. If the relevant concept is not in the shared vocabulary, then it is learned. To make learning a new concept more efficient, PRESCA leverages causal associations between the target concept and concepts that are already known. Additionally, the effort of learning the new concept is amortized by adding the concept to the shared vocabulary for supporting preference specification in future interactions. We evaluate PRESCA by using it on a Minecraft environment and show that it can be effectively used to make the agent align with the user's preference.