Michal Moshkovitz
Michal Moshkovitz is a Researcher at Google Research dedicated to bridging the gap between practical machine learning and rigorous theoretical understanding. Her current research interests span the foundations of Reinforcement Learning (RL) for Large Language Models (LLMs), Explainable AI (XAI), souping strategies, and dynamic RL policies. Michal frequently contributes to the broader ML community through workshop organization and publications at venues like ICML and NeurIPS.
Research Areas
Authored Publications
Sort By
Preview abstract
The planning horizon in a Markov Decision Process (MDP) determines how far into the future an agent reasons. In practice, shorter horizons are commonly associated with policies that exhibit simpler or more interpretable decision-making behavior. In this paper, we establish a formal connection between environmental stochasticity and planning horizon in MDPs. We show that for broad classes of transition noise, solving a noisy MDP can be formally related to solving a noise-free MDP with a shorter effective discount factor, leading to identical optimal policies in some cases and near-optimal ones in others. We further characterize settings in which this correspondence breaks down, clarifying when horizon-based interpretations of noise are not valid. These results, which are supported by both theory and experiments, also give some insight into the common practice of using smaller discount factors for reinforcement learning than those that can be justified by standard modeling interpretations.
View details
Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods
Suraj Srinivas
Lesia Semenova
Nave Frost
Valentyn Boreiko
Shichang Zhang
Himabindu Lakkaraju
Cynthia Rudin
Jenn Wortman Vaughan
2026
Preview abstract
Despite the proliferation of Explainable AI (XAI) techniques—from feature attributions to sparse autoencoders—explanations rarely influence real-world workflows. In practice, they are often generated and discarded without guiding meaningful action. This gap reflects foundational shortcomings: research has not yet established methodologies for integrating explanations into end-to-end, human-in-the-loop systems. This position paper argues that the machine learning community must pivot from ad-hoc XAI methods toward addressing foundational & structural challenges, including unclear problem formulations, underspecified evaluation objectives, and the absence of pipelines for explanation-driven feedback. We support this claim through an analysis of recent ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR papers and a survey of XAI practitioners, revealing recurring issues that limit cumulative progress. We conclude by outlining a practical checklist designed to shift XAI toward a more human-centered, action-oriented paradigm. By emphasizing foundational clarity over the development of ad-hoc methods, we hope to provide a roadmap for integrating explanations into actionable, feedback-driven AI systems.
View details
Preview abstract
Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) are commonly considered *interpretable* within the ML community, as their structure makes the relationship between inputs and outputs relatively understandable. Therefore, it may seem natural to hypothesize that obtaining meaningful explanations for GAMs could be performed efficiently and would not be computationally infeasible. In this work, we challenge this hypothesis by analyzing the *computational complexity* of generating different explanations for various forms of GAMs across multiple contexts. Our analysis reveals a surprisingly diverse landscape of both positive and negative complexity outcomes. Particularly, under standard complexity assumptions such as P
NP, we establish several key findings: (1) in stark contrast to many other common ML models, the complexity of generating explanations for GAMs is heavily influenced by the structure of the input space; (2) the complexity of explaining GAMs varies significantly with the types of component models used - but interestingly, these differences only emerge under specific input domain settings; (3) significant complexity distinctions appear for obtaining explanations in regression tasks versus classification tasks in GAMs; and (4) expressing complex models like neural networks additively (e.g., as neural additive models) can make them easier to explain, though interestingly, this benefit appears only for certain explanation methods and input domains. Collectively, these results shed light on the feasibility of computing diverse explanations for GAMs, offering a rigorous theoretical picture of the conditions under which such computations are possible or provably hard.
View details
