Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) is a popular deep policy gradient algorithm. In standard implementations, PPO regularizes policy updates with clipped probability ratios, and parameterizes policies with either continuous Gaussian distributions or discrete Softmax distributions. These design choices are widely accepted, and motivated by empirical performance comparisons on MuJoCo and Atari benchmarks. We revisit these practices outside the regime of current benchmarks, and expose three failure modes of standard PPO. We explain why standard design choices are problematic in these cases, and show that alternative choices of surrogate objectives and policy parameterizations can prevent the failure modes. We hope that our work serves as a reminder that many algorithmic design choices in reinforcement learning are tied to specific simulation environments. We should not implicitly accept these choices as a standard part of a more general algorithm.

Most recommendation engines today are based on predicting user engagement, e.g. predicting whether a user will click on an item or not. However, there is potentially a large gap between engagement signals and a desired notion of "value" that is worth optimizing for. We use the framework of measurement theory to (a) confront the designer with a normative question about what the designer values, (b) provide a general latent variable model approach that can be used to operationalize the target construct and directly optimize for it, and (c) guide the designer in evaluating and revising their operationalization. We implement our approach on the Twitter platform on millions of users. In line with established approaches to assessing the validity of measurements, we perform a qualitative evaluation of how well our model captures a desired notion of "value".

In performative prediction, the choice of a model influences the distribution of future data, typically through actions taken based on the model's predictions. We initiate the study of stochastic optimization for performative prediction. What sets this setting apart from traditional stochastic optimization is the difference between merely updating model parameters and deploying the new model. The latter triggers a shift in the distribution that affects future data, while the former keeps the distribution as is. Assuming smoothness and strong convexity, we prove non-asymptotic rates of convergence for both greedily deploying models after each stochastic update (greedy deploy) as well as for taking several updates before redeploying (lazy deploy). In both cases, our bounds smoothly recover the optimal $O(1/k)$ rate as the strength of performativity decreases. Furthermore, they illustrate how depending on the strength of performative effects, there exists a regime where either approach outperforms the other. We experimentally explore this trade-off on both synthetic data and a strategic classification simulator.

Excessive reuse of test data has become commonplace in today's machine learning workflows. Popular benchmarks, competitions, industrial scale tuning, among other applications, all involve test data reuse beyond guidance by statistical confidence bounds. Nonetheless, recent replication studies give evidence that popular benchmarks continue to support progress despite years of extensive reuse. We proffer a new explanation for the apparent longevity of test data: Many proposed models are similar in their predictions and we prove that this similarity mitigates overfitting. Specifically, we show empirically that models proposed for the ImageNet ILSVRC benchmark agree in their predictions well beyond what we can conclude from their accuracy levels alone.

Saliency methods have emerged as a popular tool to highlight features in an input deemed relevant for the prediction of a learned model. Several saliency methods have been proposed, often guided by visual appeal on image data. In this work, we propose an actionable methodology to evaluate what kinds of explanations a given method can and cannot provide. We find that reliance, solely, on visual assessment can be misleading. Through extensive experiments we show that some existing saliency methods are independent both of the model and of the data generating process.

Consequential decision-making incentivizes individuals to adapt their behavior to the specifics of the decision rule. A long line of work has therefore sought to understand and anticipate adaptation, both to prevent strategic individuals from "gaming" the decision rule and to explicitly motivate individuals to improve. In this work, we frame the problem of adaptation as performing interventions in a causal graph. With this causal perspective, we make several contributions. First, we articulate a formal distinction between gaming and improvement. Second, we formalize strategic classification in a new way that recognizes that the individual may improve, rather than only game. In this setting, we show that it is beneficial for the decision-maker to incentivize improvement. Third, we give a reduction from causal inference to designing incentivizes for improvement. This shows that designing good incentives, while desirable, is at least as hard as causal inference.

Clustering time series is a delicate task; varying lengths and temporal offsets obscure direct comparisons. A natural strategy is to learn a parametric model foreach time series and to cluster the model parameters rather than the sequences themselves. Linear dynamical systems are a fundamental and powerful parametric model class. However, identifying the parameters of a linear dynamical systems is a venerable task, permitting provably efficient solutions only in special cases. In this work, we show that clustering the parameters of unknown linear dynamical systems is, in fact, easier than identifying them. We analyze a computationally efficient clustering algorithm that enjoys provable convergence guarantees under a natural separation assumption. Although easy to implement, our algorithm is general, handling multi-dimensional data with time offsets and partial sequences. Evaluating our algorithm on both synthetic data and real electrocardiogram (ECG) signals, we see significant improvements in clustering quality over existing baselines.

Much work aims to explain a model's prediction on a static input. We consider explanations in a temporal setting where a stateful dynamical model produces a sequence of risk estimates given an input at each time step. When the estimated risk increases, the goal of the explanation is to attribute the increase to a few relevant inputs from the past. While our formal setup and techniques are general, we carry out an in-depth case study in a clinical setting. The goal here is to alert a clinician when a patient's risk of deterioration rises. The clinician then has to decide whether to intervene and adjust the treatment. Given a potentially long sequence of new events since she last saw the patient, a concise explanation helps her to quickly triage the alert. We develop methods to lift static attribution techniques to the dynamical setting, where we identify and address challenges specific to dynamics. We then experimentally assess the utility of different explanations of clinical alerts through expert evaluation.

Excessive reuse of test data has become commonplace in today's machine learning workflows. Popular benchmarks, competitions, industrial scale tuning, among other applications, all involve test data reuse beyond guidance by statistical confidence bounds. Nonetheless, recent replication studies give evidence that popular benchmarks continue to support progress despite years of extensive reuse. We proffer a new explanation for the apparent longevity of test data: Many proposed models are similar in their predictions and we prove that this similarity mitigates overfitting. Specifically, we show empirically that models proposed for the ImageNet ILSVRC benchmark agree in their predictions well beyond what we can conclude from their accuracy levels alone. Likewise, models created by large scale hyperparameter search enjoy high levels of similarity. Motivated by these empirical observations, we give a non-asymptotic generalization bound that takes similarity into account, leading to meaningful confidence bounds in practical settings.

Excessive reuse of holdout data can lead to overfitting. However, there is little concrete evidence of significant overfitting due to holdout reuse in popular multiclass benchmarks today. Known results show that, in the worst-case, revealing the accuracy of $k$ adaptively chosen classifiers on a data set of size $n$ allows to create a classifier with bias of $\Theta(\sqrt{k/n})$ for any binary prediction problem. We show a new upper bound of $\tilde O(\max\{\sqrt{k\log(n)/(mn)},k/n\})$ on the worst-case bias that any attack can achieve in a prediction problem with $m$ classes. Moreover, we present an efficient attack that achieve a bias of $\Omega(\sqrt{k/(m^2 n)})$ and improves on previous work for the binary setting ($m=2$). We also present an inefficient attack that achieves a bias of $\tilde\Omega(k/n)$. Complementing our theoretical work, we give new practical attacks to stress-test multiclass benchmarks by aiming to create as large a bias as possible with a given number of queries. Our experiments show that the additional uncertainty of prediction with a large number of classes indeed mitigates the effect of our best attacks. Our work extends developments in understanding overfitting due to adaptive data analysis to multiclass prediction problems. It also bears out the surprising fact that multiclass prediction problems are significantly more robust to overfitting when reusing a test (or holdout) dataset. This offers an explanation as to why popular multiclass prediction benchmarks, such as ImageNet, may enjoy a longer lifespan than what intuition from literature on binary classification suggests.