Rating Multi-Modal Time-Series Forecasting Models (MM-TSFM) for Robustness Through a Causal Lens

AI systems are notorious for their fragility; minor input changes can potentially cause major output swings. When such systems are deployed in critical areas like finance, the consequences of their uncertain behavior could be severe. In this paper, we focus on multi-modal time-series forecasting, where imprecision due to noisy or incorrect data can lead to erroneous predictions, impacting stakeholders such as analysts, investors, and traders. Recently, it has been shown that beyond numeric data, graphical transformations can be used with advanced visual models to achieve better performance. In this context, we introduce a rating methodology to assess the robustness of Multi-Modal Time-Series Forecasting Models (MM-TSFM) through causal analysis, which helps us understand and quantify the isolated impact of various attributes on the forecasting accuracy of MM-TSFM. We apply our novel rating method on a variety of numeric and multi-modal forecasting models in a large experimental setup (six input settings of control and perturbations, ten data distributions, time series from six leading stocks in three industries over a year of data, and five time-series forecasters) to draw insights on robust forecasting models and the context of their strengths. Within the scope of our study, our main result is that multi-modal (numeric + visual) forecasting, which was found to be more accurate than numeric forecasting in previous studies, can also be more robust in diverse settings. Our work will help different stakeholders of time-series forecasting understand the models` behaviors along trust (robustness) and accuracy dimensions to select an appropriate model for forecasting using our rating method, leading to improved decision-making.

SafeAR: Towards Safer Algorithmic Recourse by Risk-Aware Policies

With the growing use of machine learning (ML) models in critical domains such as finance and healthcare, the need to offer recourse for those adversely affected by the decisions of ML models has become more important; individuals ought to be provided with recommendations on actions to take for improving their situation and thus receive a favorable decision. Prior work on sequential algorithmic recourse -- which recommends a series of changes -- focuses on action feasibility and uses the proximity of feature changes to determine action costs. However, the uncertainties of feature changes and the risk of higher than average costs in recourse have not been considered. It is undesirable if a recourse could (with some probability) result in a worse situation from which recovery requires an extremely high cost. It is essential to incorporate risks when computing and evaluating recourse. We call the recourse computed with such risk considerations as Safer Algorithmic Recourse (SafeAR). The objective is to empower people to choose a recourse based on their risk tolerance. In this work, we discuss and show how existing recourse desiderata can fail to capture the risk of higher costs. We present a method to compute recourse policies that consider variability in cost and connect algorithmic recourse literature with risk-sensitive reinforcement learning. We also adopt measures ``Value at Risk'' and ``Conditional Value at Risk'' from the financial literature to summarize risk concisely. We apply our method to two real-world datasets and compare policies with different levels of risk-aversion using risk measures and recourse desiderata (sparsity and proximity).

Deliberative Acting, Online Planning and Learning with Hierarchical Operational Models

The most common representation formalisms for automated planning are descriptive models that abstractly describe what the actions do and are tailored for effciently computing the next state(s) in a state-transition system. However, real-world acting requires operational models that describe how to do things, with rich control structures for closed-loop online decision-making in a dynamic environment. To use a different action model for planning than the one used for acting causes problems with combining acting and planning, in particular for the development and consistency verification of the different models. As an alternative, we define and implement an integrated acting-and-planning system in which both planning and acting use the same operational models, which are written in a general-purpose hierarchical task-oriented language offering rich control structures. The acting component, called Reactive Acting Engine (RAE), is inspired by the well-known PRS system, except that instead of being purely reactive, it can get advice from the planner. Our planner uses a UCT-like Monte Carlo Tree Search procedure, called UPOM (UCT Procedure for Operational Models), whose rollouts are simulations of the actor's operational models. We also present learning strategies for use with RAE and UPOM that acquire, from online acting experiences and/or simulated planning results, a mapping from decision contexts to method instances as well as a heuristic function to guide UPOM. Our experimental results show that UPOM and our learning strategies significantly improve the acting efficiency and robustness of RAE. We discuss the asymptotic convergence of UPOM by mapping its search space to an MDP.

Integrating Acting, Planning and Learning in Hierarchical Operational Models

We present new planning and learning algorithms for RAE, the Refinement Acting Engine. RAE uses hierarchical operational models to perform tasks in dynamically changing environments. Our planning procedure, UPOM, does a UCT-like search in the space of operational models in order to find a near-optimal method to use for the task and context at hand. Our learning strategies acquire, from online acting experiences and/or simulated planning results, a mapping from decision contexts to method instances as well as a heuristic function to guide UPOM. Our experimental results show that UPOM and our learning strategies significantly improve RAE's performance in four test domains using two different metrics: efficiency and success ratio.