工人花费大量时间学习如何做出正确的决定。但是，评估给定决策的功效可能很复杂 - 例如，决策结果通常是长期的，并且以复杂的方式与原始决策有关。令人惊讶的是，即使学习良好的决策策略很困难，它们通常可以以简单明了的形式表达。为了关注顺序决策，我们设计了一种新颖的机器学习算法，该算法能够从跟踪数据中提取“最佳实践”，并以可解释的“提示”的形式向人类传达其见解。我们的算法选择了最能弥合人类工人所采取的行动与最佳政策所采取的行动之间差距的提示，以说明行动对实现更高绩效的影响的方式。我们通过一系列参与者管理虚拟厨房的一系列随机对照实验来评估我们的方法。我们的实验表明，我们算法产生的提示可以显着改善相对于直观基准的人类性能。此外，我们讨论了许多经验见解，这些见解可以帮助告知针对人类界面的算法设计。例如，我们发现参与者不仅盲目地遵循我们的技巧的证据。相反，他们将他们与自己的经验结合在一起，以发现改善性能的其他策略。

人类决策受到许多系统错误的困扰。可以通过提供决策辅助工具来指导决策者参与重要信息并根据理性决策策略将其集成，从而避免使用这些错误。设计这样的决策辅助工具曾经是一个乏味的手动过程。认知科学的进步可能会使将来自动化这一过程。我们最近引入了机器学习方法，以自动发现人类决策的最佳策略，并自动向人们解释这些策略。通过这种方法构建的决策辅助工具能够改善人类决策。但是，遵循该方法产生的描述非常乏味。我们假设可以通过将自动发现的决策策略作为一系列自然语言指示来克服这个问题。实验1表明，人们确实确实比以前的方法更容易理解此类程序说明。在这一发现的鼓励下，我们开发了一种将我们先前方法的输出转化为程序指示的算法。我们应用了改进的方法来自动为自然主义计划任务（即计划旅行）和自然主义决策任务（即选择抵押）生成决策辅助工具。实验2表明，这些自动产生的决策AID可显着改善人们在计划公路旅行和选择抵押贷款方面的表现。这些发现表明，AI驱动的增强可能有可能改善现实世界中的人类决策。

Crowdsourcing, in which human intelligence and productivity is dynamically mobilized to tackle tasks too complex for automation alone to handle, has grown to be an important research topic and inspired new businesses (e.g., Uber, Airbnb). Over the years, crowdsourcing has morphed from providing a platform where workers and tasks can be matched up manually into one which leverages data-driven algorithmic management approaches powered by artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve increasingly sophisticated optimization objectives. In this paper, we provide a survey presenting a unique systematic overview on how AI can empower crowdsourcing - which we refer to as AI-Empowered Crowdsourcing(AIEC). We propose a taxonomy which divides algorithmic crowdsourcing into three major areas: 1) task delegation, 2) motivating workers, and 3) quality control, focusing on the major objectives which need to be accomplished. We discuss the limitations and insights, and curate the challenges of doing research in each of these areas to highlight promising future research directions.

Adequately assigning credit to actions for future outcomes based on their contributions is a long-standing open challenge in Reinforcement Learning. The assumptions of the most commonly used credit assignment method are disadvantageous in tasks where the effects of decisions are not immediately evident. Furthermore, this method can only evaluate actions that have been selected by the agent, making it highly inefficient. Still, no alternative methods have been widely adopted in the field. Hindsight Credit Assignment is a promising, but still unexplored candidate, which aims to solve the problems of both long-term and counterfactual credit assignment. In this thesis, we empirically investigate Hindsight Credit Assignment to identify its main benefits, and key points to improve. Then, we apply it to factored state representations, and in particular to state representations based on the causal structure of the environment. In this setting, we propose a variant of Hindsight Credit Assignment that effectively exploits a given causal structure. We show that our modification greatly decreases the workload of Hindsight Credit Assignment, making it more efficient and enabling it to outperform the baseline credit assignment method on various tasks. This opens the way to other methods based on given or learned causal structures.

人为决策的合作努力实现超出人类或人工智能表现的团队绩效。但是，许多因素都会影响人类团队的成功，包括用户的领域专业知识，AI系统的心理模型，对建议的信任等等。这项工作检查了用户与三种模拟算法模型的互动，所有这些模型都具有相似的精度，但对其真正的正面和真实负率进行了不同的调整。我们的研究检查了在非平凡的血管标签任务中的用户性能，参与者表明给定的血管是流动还是停滞。我们的结果表明，虽然AI-Assistant的建议可以帮助用户决策，但用户相对于AI的基线性能和AI错误类型的补充调整等因素会显着影响整体团队的整体绩效。新手用户有所改善，但不能达到AI的准确性。高度熟练的用户通常能够识别何时应遵循AI建议，并通常保持或提高其性能。与AI相似的准确性水平的表演者在AI建议方面是最大的变化。此外，我们发现用户对AI的性能亲戚的看法也对给出AI建议时的准确性是否有所提高产生重大影响。这项工作提供了有关与人类协作有关的因素的复杂性的见解，并提供了有关如何开发以人为中心的AI算法来补充用户在决策任务中的建议。

The reinforcement learning paradigm is a popular way to address problems that have only limited environmental feedback, rather than correctly labeled examples, as is common in other machine learning contexts. While significant progress has been made to improve learning in a single task, the idea of transfer learning has only recently been applied to reinforcement learning tasks. The core idea of transfer is that experience gained in learning to perform one task can help improve learning performance in a related, but different, task. In this article we present a framework that classifies transfer learning methods in terms of their capabilities and goals, and then use it to survey the existing literature, as well as to suggest future directions for transfer learning work.

Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a recently proposed search method that combines the precision of tree search with the generality of random sampling. It has received considerable interest due to its spectacular success in the difficult problem of computer Go, but has also proved beneficial in a range of other domains. This paper is a survey of the literature to date, intended to provide a snapshot of the state of the art after the first five years of MCTS research. We outline the core algorithm's derivation, impart some structure on the many variations and enhancements that have been proposed, and summarise the results from the key game and non-game domains to which MCTS methods have been applied. A number of open research questions indicate that the field is ripe for future work.

Humans are spectacular reinforcement learners, constantly learning from and adjusting to experience and feedback. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily mean humans are fast learners. When tasks are challenging, learning can become unacceptably slow. Fortunately, humans do not have to learn tabula rasa, and learning speed can be greatly increased with learning aids. In this work we validate a new type of learning aid -- reward shaping for humans via inverse reinforcement learning (IRL). The goal of this aid is to increase the speed with which humans can learn good policies for specific tasks. Furthermore this approach compliments alternative machine learning techniques such as safety features that try to prevent individuals from making poor decisions. To achieve our results we first extend a well known IRL algorithm via kernel methods. Afterwards we conduct two human subjects experiments using an online game where players have limited time to learn a good policy. We show with statistical significance that players who receive our learning aid are able to approach desired policies more quickly than the control group.

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.

在线众包平台使对算法输出进行评估变得容易，并提出诸如“哪个图像更好，A或B？”之类的问题的调查，在视觉和图形研究论文中的这些“用户研究”的扩散导致了增加匆忙进行的研究充其量是草率且无知的，并且可能有害和误导。我们认为，在计算机视觉和图形论文中的用户研究的设计和报告需要更多关注。为了提高从业者的知识并提高用户研究的可信度和可复制性，我们提供了用户体验研究（UXR），人类计算机互动（HCI）和相关领域的方法论的概述。我们讨论了目前在计算机视觉和图形研究中未利用的基础用户研究方法（例如，需要调查），但可以为研究项目提供宝贵的指导。我们为有兴趣探索其他UXR方法的读者提供了进一步的指导。最后，我们描述了研究界的更广泛的开放问题和建议。我们鼓励作者和审稿人都认识到，并非每项研究贡献都需要用户研究，而且根本没有研究比不小心进行的研究更好。

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

人工智能（AI）系统越来越多地用于提供建议以促进人类决策。尽管大量工作探讨了如何优化AI系统以产生准确且公平的建议以及如何向人类决策者提供算法建议，但在这项工作中，我们提出了一个不同的基本问题：何时应该提供建议？由于当前不断提供算法建议的局限性的限制，我们提出了以双向方式与人类用户互动的AI系统的设计。我们的AI系统学习使用过去的人类决策为政策提供建议。然后，对于新案例，学识渊博的政策利用人类的意见来确定算法建议将是有用的案例，以及人类最好单独决定的情况。我们通过使用美国刑事司法系统的数据对审前释放决策进行大规模实验来评估我们的方法。在我们的实验中，要求参与者评估被告违反其释放条款的风险，如果释放，并受到不同建议方法的建议。结果表明，与固定的非交互式建议方法相比，我们的交互式辅助方法可以在需要时提供建议，并显着改善人类决策。我们的方法在促进人类学习，保留人类决策者的互补优势以及对建议的更积极反应方面具有额外的优势。

在研究和行业中，监督机器学习的日益增长增加了对标记数据集的需求。众包已经成为创建数据标签的一种流行方法。但是，处理大量任务会导致工人疲劳，从而产生负面影响的标签质量。为了解决这个问题，我们介绍了一个协作众包系统Trueyes，从而可以向移动应用程序用户分发微型任务。Trueyes允许机器学习实践者发布标签任务，移动应用程序开发人员以集成货币化的任务广告，以及用户来标记数据而不是观看广告。为了评估系统，我们对N = 296名参与者进行了实验。我们的结果表明，标记数据的质量与传统的众包方法相媲美，大多数用户更喜欢任务广告而不是传统广告。我们讨论了系统的扩展，并解决了将来如何将移动广告空间用作生产资源。

蒙特卡洛树搜索（MCT）是设计游戏机器人或解决顺序决策问题的强大方法。该方法依赖于平衡探索和开发的智能树搜索。MCT以模拟的形式进行随机抽样，并存储动作的统计数据，以在每个随后的迭代中做出更有教育的选择。然而，该方法已成为组合游戏的最新技术，但是，在更复杂的游戏（例如那些具有较高的分支因素或实时系列的游戏）以及各种实用领域（例如，运输，日程安排或安全性）有效的MCT应用程序通常需要其与问题有关的修改或与其他技术集成。这种特定领域的修改和混合方法是本调查的主要重点。最后一项主要的MCT调查已于2012年发布。自发布以来出现的贡献特别感兴趣。

可接受的是指对象允许的可能动作的感知。尽管其与人计算机相互作用有关，但没有现有理论解释了支撑无力形成的机制;也就是说，通过交互发现和适应的充分性。基于认知科学的加固学习理论，提出了一种综合性的无力形成理论。关键假设是用户学习在存在增强信号（成功/故障）时将有前途的电机动作与经验相关联。他们还学会分类行动（例如，“旋转”拨号），使他们能够命名和理由的能力。在遇到新颖的小部件时，他们概括这些行动的能力决定了他们感受到的能力。我们在虚拟机器人模型中实现了这个理论，它展示了在交互式小部件任务中的人性化适应性。虽然其预测与人类数据的趋势对齐，但人类能够更快地适应能力，表明存在额外机制。

\ EMPH {人工智能}（AI）系统越来越多地参与影响我们生活的决策，确保自动决策是公平的，道德已经成为最优先事项。直观地，我们觉得类似人的决定，人工代理人的判断应该必然地以一些道德原则为基础。然而，如果有关决定所基础的所有有关因素的全部信息，可以真正伦理（人类或人为）和公平（根据任何道德理论）和公平（根据公平的任何概念）的规定在决策时。这提出了两个问题：（1）在设置中，我们依赖使用通过监督学习获得的分类器的AI系统，存在一些感应/泛化，即使在学习期间也可能不存在一些相关属性。 （2）根据游戏揭示任何 - 无论是道德的纯策略都不可避免地易于剥削，建模这些决定。此外，在许多游戏中，只能通过使用混合策略来获得纳什均衡，即实现数学上最佳结果，决定必须随机化。在本文中，我们认为，在监督学习设置中，存在至少以及确定性分类器的随机分类器，因此在许多情况下可能是最佳选择。我们支持我们的理论效果，具有一个实证研究，表明对随机人工决策者的积极社会态度，并讨论了与使用与当前的AI政策和标准化举措相关的随机分类器相关的一些政策和实施问题。

由于数据量增加，金融业的快速变化已经彻底改变了数据处理和数据分析的技术，并带来了新的理论和计算挑战。与古典随机控制理论和解决财务决策问题的其他分析方法相比，解决模型假设的财务决策问题，强化学习（RL）的新发展能够充分利用具有更少模型假设的大量财务数据并改善复杂的金融环境中的决策。该调查纸目的旨在审查最近的资金途径的发展和使用RL方法。我们介绍了马尔可夫决策过程，这是许多常用的RL方法的设置。然后引入各种算法，重点介绍不需要任何模型假设的基于价值和基于策略的方法。连接是用神经网络进行的，以扩展框架以包含深的RL算法。我们的调查通过讨论了这些RL算法在金融中各种决策问题中的应用，包括最佳执行，投资组合优化，期权定价和对冲，市场制作，智能订单路由和Robo-Awaring。

交互式增强学习建议使用外部信息，以加快学习过程。当与学习者互动时，人类可以提供评估或有益的建议。先前的研究通过在交互式增强学习过程中包括实时反馈，专门旨在提高代理商的学习速度，同时最大程度地减少对人类的时间的需求，从而重点关注人类建议的效果。这项工作重点是回答两种评估或信息性的方法中的哪种是人类的首选教学方法。此外，这项工作为人类试验提供了实验设置，旨在比较人们用来提供人类参与建议的方法。获得的结果表明，向学习者提供信息的用户提供了更准确的建议，愿意在更长的时间内为学习者提供帮助，并每集提供更多建议。此外，使用信息丰富的方法的参与者的自我评估表明，与提供评估建议的人相比，代理商遵循建议的能力更高，因此，他们认为自己的建议的准确性更高。

Curiosity for machine agents has been a focus of lively research activity. The study of human and animal curiosity, particularly specific curiosity, has unearthed several properties that would offer important benefits for machine learners, but that have not yet been well-explored in machine intelligence. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary survey of the field of animal and machine curiosity. As a principal contribution of this work, we use this survey as a foundation to introduce and define what we consider to be five of the most important properties of specific curiosity: 1) directedness towards inostensible referents, 2) cessation when satisfied, 3) voluntary exposure, 4) transience, and 5) coherent long-term learning. As a second main contribution of this work, we show how these properties may be implemented together in a proof-of-concept reinforcement learning agent: we demonstrate how the properties manifest in the behaviour of this agent in a simple non-episodic grid-world environment that includes curiosity-inducing locations and induced targets of curiosity. As we would hope, our example of a computational specific curiosity agent exhibits short-term directed behaviour while updating long-term preferences to adaptively seek out curiosity-inducing situations. This work, therefore, presents a landmark synthesis and translation of specific curiosity to the domain of machine learning and reinforcement learning and provides a novel view into how specific curiosity operates and in the future might be integrated into the behaviour of goal-seeking, decision-making computational agents in complex environments.

随着AI系统表现出越来越强烈的预测性能，它们的采用已经在许多域中种植。然而，在刑事司法和医疗保健等高赌场域中，由于安全，道德和法律问题，往往是完全自动化的，但是完全手工方法可能是不准确和耗时的。因此，对研究界的兴趣日益增长，以增加人力决策。除了为此目的开发AI技术之外，人民AI决策的新兴领域必须采用实证方法，以形成对人类如何互动和与AI合作做出决定的基础知识。为了邀请和帮助结构研究努力了解理解和改善人为 - AI决策的研究，我们近期对本课题的实证人体研究的文献。我们总结了在三个重要方面的100多篇论文中的研究设计选择：（1）决定任务，（2）AI模型和AI援助要素，以及（3）评估指标。对于每个方面，我们总结了当前的趋势，讨论了现场当前做法中的差距，并列出了未来研究的建议。我们的调查强调了开发共同框架的需要考虑人类 - AI决策的设计和研究空间，因此研究人员可以在研究设计中进行严格的选择，研究界可以互相构建并产生更广泛的科学知识。我们还希望这项调查将成为HCI和AI社区的桥梁，共同努力，相互塑造人类决策的经验科学和计算技术。