United States

Reward-Weighted Regression (RWR) belongs to a family of widely known iterative Reinforcement Learning algorithms based on the Expectation-Maximization framework. In this family, learning at each iteration consists of sampling a batch of trajectories using the current policy and fitting a new policy to maximize a return-weighted log-likelihood of actions. Although RWR is known to yield monotonic improvement of the policy under certain circumstances, whether and under which conditions RWR converges to the optimal policy have remained open questions. In this paper, we provide for the first time a proof that RWR converges to a global optimum when no function approximation is used, in a general compact setting. Furthermore, for the simpler case with finite state and action spaces we prove R-linear convergence of the state-value function to the optimum.

AAAI 2022

Reward-Weighted Regression Converges to a Global Optimum

## Welcome!
"I am excited to welcome you to this year’s edition of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing! Importantly, it marks the 30th edition of EMNLP. With over 8,000 submissions, more than 3,000 accepted papers, and thousands of attendees, we have come a long way from that first
workshop, which had 14 accepted papers. As the field looks ahead, Suzhou is the fitting location for celebrating this milestone: rooted in a long literary tradition, yet modern and forward-looking, and home to a large share of the NLP community."<br>

*Message from the General Chair, Dirk Hovy*





<br>

EMNLP 2025

Celebrate 30 Years of EMNLP! 
EMNLP 2025 will be held in Suzhou, China from November 5th to November 9th, 2025.

technical paper

The purpose of the AAAI conference is to promote research in artificial intelligence (AI) and scientific exchange among AI researchers, practitioners, scientists, and engineers in affiliated disciplines. 

As neural network classifiers are deployed in real-world applications, it is crucial that their failures can be detected reliably. One practical solution is to assign confidence scores to each prediction, then use these scores to filter out possible misclassifications. However, existing confidence metrics are not yet sufficiently reliable for this role. This paper presents a new framework that produces a quantitative metric for detecting misclassification errors. This framework, RED, builds an error detector on top of the base classifier and estimates uncertainty of the detection scores using Gaussian Processes. Experimental comparisons with other error detection methods on 125 UCI datasets demonstrate that this approach is effective. Further implementations on two probabilistic base classifiers and two large deep learning architecture in vision tasks further confirm that the method is robust and scalable. Third, an empirical analysis of RED with out-of-distribution and adversarial samples shows that the method can be used not only to detect errors but also to understand where they come from. RED can thereby be used to improve trustworthiness of neural network classifiers more broadly in the future.

Detecting Misclassification Errors in Neural Networks with a Gaussian Process Model

Two-sided matching is an important research area that has had a major impact on the design of real-world matching markets. One consistent feature in many of the real-world applications is that they impose new feasibility constraints that lead to research challenges. We survey developments in the field of two-sided matching with various constraints, including those based on regions, diversity, multi-dimensional capacities, and matroids.

Matching Market Design with Constraints

Recent  breakthroughs in AI have shown the remarkable power of deep learning and deep reinforcement learning. These developments, however, have been tied to specific tasks, and progress  in out-of-distribution generalization has been limited.  While it is assumed that these limitations can be overcome by incorporating suitable inductive biases, the notion of inductive biases itself is often left vague and does not provide meaningful guidance. In the paper, I articulate a different learning approach where representations do not emerge from  biases in a neural architecture  but are learned over a given  target language with  a known  semantics. The basic ideas are  implicit in mainstream AI where representations have been encoded in languages ranging from fragments of first-order logic to probabilistic structural causal models. The challenge is to learn from data the representations that have traditionally been crafted by hand. Generalization is then a  result of the semantics  of the language. The goals of this paper  are to make these ideas explicit, to place them in a broader context where the design of the target language is crucial, and to illustrate them in the context of learning to act and plan. For this, after a general discussion, I consider  learning representations of actions, general policies, and subgoals ("intrinsic rewards"). In  these cases, learning is formulated  as a combinatorial  problem  but nothing prevents the use of deep learning techniques instead. Indeed, learning representations over languages with a known semantics  provides an account of what is to be learned, while learning representations with neural nets   provides  a complementary account of how representations can be learned. The challenge and the opportunity is to bring the two  together.

Target Languages (vs. Inductive Biases) for Learning to Act and Plan

Despite the surprising power of many modern AI systems that often learn their own representations, there is significant discontent about their inscrutability and the attendant problems in their ability to interact with humans. While alternatives such as  neuro-symbolic approaches have been proposed, there is a lack of consensus on what they are about. There are often two independent motivations (i) symbols as a lingua franca for human-AI interaction and (ii) symbols as (system-produced) abstractions use in its internal reasoning. The jury is still out on whether AI systems will need to use symbols in their internal reasoning to achieve general intelligence capabilities. Whatever the answer there is, the need for (human-understandable) symbols in human-AI interaction seems quite compelling. Symbols, like emotions, may well not be sine qua non for intelligence per se, but they will be crucial for AI systems to interact with us humans--as we can neither turn off our emotions not get by without our symbols. In particular, in many human-designed domains, humans would be interested in providing explicit (symbolic) knowledge and advice--and expect machine explanations in kind. This alone requires AI systems to at least do their I/O in symbolic terms. In this blue sky paper, we argue this point of view, and discuss research directions that need to be pursued to allow for this type of human-AI interaction.

Symbols as a Lingua Franca for Bridging Human-AI Chasm for Explainable and Advisable AI Systems

The rapid development of drone technology is leading to more and more use cases being proposed. In response, regulators are drawing up drone traffic management frameworks. However, to design solutions that are efficient, fair, simple, non-manipulable, and scalable, we need market design and AI expertise. To this end, we introduce the drone traffic management problem as a new research challenge to the market design and AI communities. We present five design desiderata that we have derived from our interviews with stakeholders from the regulatory side as well as from public and private enterprises. Finally, we provide an overview of the solution space to point out possible directions for future research.

Market Design for Drone Traffic Management

We argue that the dominant approach to explainable AI for explaining image classification, annotating images with heatmaps, provides little value for users unfamiliar with deep learning. We argue that explainable AI for images should produce output like experts produce when communicating with one another, with apprentices, and with novices. We provide an expanded set of goals of explainable AI systems and propose a Turing Test for explainable AI.

Expert-Informed, User-Centric Explanations for Machine Learning

Common sense has always been of interest in AI, but has rarely taken center stage.  Despite its mention in one of John McCarthy's earliest papers and years of work by dedicated researchers, arguably no AI system with a serious amount of general common sense has ever emerged.  Why is that?  What's missing?  Examples of AI systems' failures of common sense abound, and they point to AI's frequent focus on expertise as the cause.  Those attempting to break the brittleness barrier, even in the context of modern deep learning, have tended to invest their energy in large numbers of small bits of commonsense knowledge.  But all the commonsense knowledge fragments in the world don't add up to a system that actually demonstrates common sense in a human-like way.  We advocate examining common sense from a broader perspective than in the past.  Common sense is more complex than it has been taken to be and is worthy of its own scientific exploration.

Toward a New Science of Common Sense

AI is increasingly used to aid decision-making about the allocation of scarce societal resources, for example housing for homeless people, organs for transplantation, and food donations. Recently, there have been several proposals for how to design objectives for these systems that attempt to achieve some combination of fairness, efficiency, incentive compatibility, and satisfactory aggregation of stakeholder preferences. This paper lays out possible roles and opportunities for AI in this domain, arguing for a closer engagement with the political philosophy literature on local justice, which provides a framework for thinking about how societies have over time framed objectives for such allocation problems. It also discusses how we may be able to integrate into this framework the opportunities and risks opened up by the ubiquity of data and the availability of algorithms that can use them to make accurate predictions about the future.

Local Justice and the Algorithmic Allocation of Scarce Societal Resources

Many present and future problems associated with artificial intelligence are not due to its limitations, but to our poor assessment of its behaviour. Our evaluation procedures produce aggregated performance metrics that lack detail and quantified uncertainty about the following question: how will an AI system, with a particular profile \pi, behave for a new problem, characterised by a particular situation \mu? Instead of just aggregating test results, we can use machine learning methods to fully capitalise on this evaluation information. In this paper, we introduce the concept of an assessor model, \hat{R}(r|\pi,\mu), a conditional probability estimator trained on test data. We discuss how these assessors can be built by using information of the full system-problem space and illustrate a broad range of applications that derive from varied inferences and aggregations from \hat{R}. Building good assessor models will change the predictive and explanatory power of AI evaluation and will lead to new research directions for building and using them. We propose accompanying every deployed AI system with its own assessor.

Training on the Test Set: Mapping the System-Problem Space in AI

The ubiquity of recommender systems has increased the need for higher-bandwidth, natural and efficient communication with users. This need is increasingly filled by recommenders that support natural language interaction, often conversationally. Given the inherent semantic subjectivity present in natural language, we argue that modeling subjective attributes in recommenders is a critical, yet understudied, avenue of AI research. We propose a novel framework for understanding different forms of subjectivity, examine various recommender tasks that will benefit from a systematic treatment of subjective attributes, and outline a number of research challenges.

Downloads

Next from AAAI 2022

Detecting Misclassification Errors in Neural Networks with a Gaussian Process Model

Similar lecture

Recall with Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought Distillation for Mamba’s Long-Context Memory and Extrapolation

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from AAAI 2022

Detecting Misclassification Errors in Neural Networks with a Gaussian Process Model

Similar lecture

Recall with Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought Distillation for Mamba’s Long-Context Memory and Extrapolation

Downloads