Algorithms

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Drones navigate unseen environments with liquid neural networks

      by

      In the vast, expansive skies where birds once ruled supreme, a new crop of aviators is taking flight. These pioneers of the air are not living creatures, but rather a product of deliberate innovation: drones. But these aren’t your typical flying bots, humming around like mechanical bees. Rather, they’re avian-inspired marvels that soar through the sky, guided by liquid neural networks to navigate ever-changing and unseen environments with precision and ease.

      Inspired by the adaptable nature of organic brains, researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) have introduced a method for robust flight navigation agents to master vision-based fly-to-target tasks in intricate, unfamiliar environments. The liquid neural networks, which can continuously adapt to new data inputs, showed prowess in making reliable decisions in unknown domains like forests, urban landscapes, and environments with added noise, rotation, and occlusion. These adaptable models, which outperformed many state-of-the-art counterparts in navigation tasks, could enable potential real-world drone applications like search and rescue, delivery, and wildlife monitoring.

      The researchers’ recent study, published today in Science Robotics, details how this new breed of agents can adapt to significant distribution shifts, a long-standing challenge in the field. The team’s new class of machine-learning algorithms, however, captures the causal structure of tasks from high-dimensional, unstructured data, such as pixel inputs from a drone-mounted camera. These networks can then extract crucial aspects of a task (i.e., understand the task at hand) and ignore irrelevant features, allowing acquired navigation skills to transfer targets seamlessly to new environments.

      Play video

      Drones navigate unseen environments with liquid neural networks.

      “We are thrilled by the immense potential of our learning-based control approach for robots, as it lays the groundwork for solving problems that arise when training in one environment and deploying in a completely distinct environment without additional training,” says Daniela Rus, CSAIL director and the Andrew (1956) and Erna Viterbi Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. “Our experiments demonstrate that we can effectively teach a drone to locate an object in a forest during summer, and then deploy the model in winter, with vastly different surroundings, or even in urban settings, with varied tasks such as seeking and following. This adaptability is made possible by the causal underpinnings of our solutions. These flexible algorithms could one day aid in decision-making based on data streams that change over time, such as medical diagnosis and autonomous driving applications.”

      A daunting challenge was at the forefront: Do machine-learning systems understand the task they are given from data when flying drones to an unlabeled object? And, would they be able to transfer their learned skill and task to new environments with drastic changes in scenery, such as flying from a forest to an urban landscape? What’s more, unlike the remarkable abilities of our biological brains, deep learning systems struggle with capturing causality, frequently over-fitting their training data and failing to adapt to new environments or changing conditions. This is especially troubling for resource-limited embedded systems, like aerial drones, that need to traverse varied environments and respond to obstacles instantaneously. 

      The liquid networks, in contrast, offer promising preliminary indications of their capacity to address this crucial weakness in deep learning systems. The team’s system was first trained on data collected by a human pilot, to see how they transferred learned navigation skills to new environments under drastic changes in scenery and conditions. Unlike traditional neural networks that only learn during the training phase, the liquid neural net’s parameters can change over time, making them not only interpretable, but more resilient to unexpected or noisy data. 

      In a series of quadrotor closed-loop control experiments, the drones underwent range tests, stress tests, target rotation and occlusion, hiking with adversaries, triangular loops between objects, and dynamic target tracking. They tracked moving targets, and executed multi-step loops between objects in never-before-seen environments, surpassing performance of other cutting-edge counterparts. 

      The team believes that the ability to learn from limited expert data and understand a given task while generalizing to new environments could make autonomous drone deployment more efficient, cost-effective, and reliable. Liquid neural networks, they noted, could enable autonomous air mobility drones to be used for environmental monitoring, package delivery, autonomous vehicles, and robotic assistants. 

      “The experimental setup presented in our work tests the reasoning capabilities of various deep learning systems in controlled and straightforward scenarios,” says MIT CSAIL Research Affiliate Ramin Hasani. “There is still so much room left for future research and development on more complex reasoning challenges for AI systems in autonomous navigation applications, which has to be tested before we can safely deploy them in our society.”

      “Robust learning and performance in out-of-distribution tasks and scenarios are some of the key problems that machine learning and autonomous robotic systems have to conquer to make further inroads in society-critical applications,” says Alessio Lomuscio, professor of AI safety in the Department of Computing at Imperial College London. “In this context, the performance of liquid neural networks, a novel brain-inspired paradigm developed by the authors at MIT, reported in this study is remarkable. If these results are confirmed in other experiments, the paradigm here developed will contribute to making AI and robotic systems more reliable, robust, and efficient.”

      Clearly, the sky is no longer the limit, but rather a vast playground for the boundless possibilities of these airborne marvels. 

      Hasani and PhD student Makram Chahine; Patrick Kao ’22, MEng ’22; and PhD student Aaron Ray SM ’21 wrote the paper with Ryan Shubert ’20, MEng ’22; MIT postdocs Mathias Lechner and Alexander Amini; and Rus.

      This research was supported, in part, by Schmidt Futures, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, the U.S. Air Force Artificial Intelligence Accelerator, and the Boeing Co. More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Strengthening trust in machine-learning models

      by

      Probabilistic machine learning methods are becoming increasingly powerful tools in data analysis, informing a range of critical decisions across disciplines and applications, from forecasting election results to predicting the impact of microloans on addressing poverty.

      This class of methods uses sophisticated concepts from probability theory to handle uncertainty in decision-making. But the math is only one piece of the puzzle in determining their accuracy and effectiveness. In a typical data analysis, researchers make many subjective choices, or potentially introduce human error, that must also be assessed in order to cultivate users’ trust in the quality of decisions based on these methods.

      To address this issue, MIT computer scientist Tamara Broderick, associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), and a team of researchers have developed a classification system — a “taxonomy of trust” — that defines where trust might break down in a data analysis and identifies strategies to strengthen trust at each step. The other researchers on the project are Professor Anna Smith at the University of Kentucky, professors Tian Zheng and Andrew Gelman at Columbia University, and Professor Rachael Meager at the London School of Economics. The team’s hope is to highlight concerns that are already well-studied and those that need more attention.

      In their paper, published in February in Science Advances, the researchers begin by detailing the steps in the data analysis process where trust might break down: Analysts make choices about what data to collect and which models, or mathematical representations, most closely mirror the real-life problem or question they are aiming to answer. They select algorithms to fit the model and use code to run those algorithms. Each of these steps poses unique challenges around building trust. Some components can be checked for accuracy in measurable ways. “Does my code have bugs?”, for example, is a question that can be tested against objective criteria. Other times, problems are more subjective, with no clear-cut answers; analysts are confronted with numerous strategies to gather data and decide whether a model reflects the real world.

      “What I think is nice about making this taxonomy, is that it really highlights where people are focusing. I think a lot of research naturally focuses on this level of ‘are my algorithms solving a particular mathematical problem?’ in part because it’s very objective, even if it’s a hard problem,” Broderick says.

      “I think it’s really hard to answer ‘is it reasonable to mathematize an important applied problem in a certain way?’ because it’s somehow getting into a harder space, it’s not just a mathematical problem anymore.”

      Capturing real life in a model

      The researchers’ work in categorizing where trust breaks down, though it may seem abstract, is rooted in real-world application.

      Meager, a co-author on the paper, analyzed whether microfinances can have a positive effect in a community. The project became a case study for where trust could break down, and ways to reduce this risk.

      At first look, measuring the impact of microfinancing might seem like a straightforward endeavor. But like any analysis, researchers meet challenges at each step in the process that can affect trust in the outcome. Microfinancing — in which individuals or small businesses receive small loans and other financial services in lieu of conventional banking — can offer different services, depending on the program. For the analysis, Meager gathered datasets from microfinance programs in countries across the globe, including in Mexico, Mongolia, Bosnia, and the Philippines.

      When combining conspicuously distinct datasets, in this case from multiple countries and across different cultures and geographies, researchers must evaluate whether specific case studies can reflect broader trends. It is also important to contextualize the data on hand. For example, in rural Mexico, owning goats may be counted as an investment.

      “It’s hard to measure the quality of life of an individual. People measure things like, ‘What’s the business profit of the small business?’ Or ‘What’s the consumption level of a household?’ There’s this potential for mismatch between what you ultimately really care about, and what you’re measuring,” Broderick says. “Before we get to the mathematical level, what data and what assumptions are we leaning on?”

      With data on hand, analysts must define the real-world questions they seek to answer. In the case of evaluating the benefits of microfinancing, analysts must define what they consider a positive outcome. It is standard in economics, for example, to measure the average financial gain per business in communities where a microfinance program is introduced. But reporting an average might suggest a net positive effect even if only a few (or even one) person benefited, instead of the community as a whole.

      “What you really wanted was that a lot of people are benefiting,” Broderick says. “It sounds simple. Why didn’t we measure the thing that we cared about? But I think it’s really common that practitioners use standard machine learning tools, for a lot of reasons. And these tools might report a proxy that doesn’t always agree with the quantity of interest.”

      Analysts may consciously or subconsciously favor models they are familiar with, especially after investing a great deal of time learning their ins and outs. “Someone might be hesitant to try a nonstandard method because they might be less certain they will use it correctly. Or peer review might favor certain familiar methods, even if a researcher might like to use nonstandard methods,” Broderick says. “There are a lot of reasons, sociologically. But this can be a concern for trust.”

      Final step, checking the code 

      While distilling a real-life problem into a model can be a big-picture, amorphous problem, checking the code that runs an algorithm can feel “prosaic,” Broderick says. But it is another potentially overlooked area where trust can be strengthened.

      In some cases, checking a coding pipeline that executes an algorithm might be considered outside the purview of an analyst’s job, especially when there is the option to use standard software packages.

      One way to catch bugs is to test whether code is reproducible. Depending on the field, however, sharing code alongside published work is not always a requirement or the norm. As models increase in complexity over time, it becomes harder to recreate code from scratch. Reproducing a model becomes difficult or even impossible.

      “Let’s just start with every journal requiring you to release your code. Maybe it doesn’t get totally double-checked, and everything isn’t absolutely perfect, but let’s start there,” Broderick says, as one step toward building trust.

      Paper co-author Gelman worked on an analysis that forecast the 2020 U.S. presidential election using state and national polls in real-time. The team published daily updates in The Economist magazine, while also publishing their code online for anyone to download and run themselves. Throughout the season, outsiders pointed out both bugs and conceptual problems in the model, ultimately contributing to a stronger analysis.

      The researchers acknowledge that while there is no single solution to create a perfect model, analysts and scientists have the opportunity to reinforce trust at nearly every turn.

      “I don’t think we expect any of these things to be perfect,” Broderick says, “but I think we can expect them to be better or to be as good as possible.” More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Learning to grow machine-learning models

      by

      It’s no secret that OpenAI’s ChatGPT has some incredible capabilities — for instance, the chatbot can write poetry that resembles Shakespearean sonnets or debug code for a computer program. These abilities are made possible by the massive machine-learning model that ChatGPT is built upon. Researchers have found that when these types of models become large enough, extraordinary capabilities emerge.

      But bigger models also require more time and money to train. The training process involves showing hundreds of billions of examples to a model. Gathering so much data is an involved process in itself. Then come the monetary and environmental costs of running many powerful computers for days or weeks to train a model that may have billions of parameters. 

      “It’s been estimated that training models at the scale of what ChatGPT is hypothesized to run on could take millions of dollars, just for a single training run. Can we improve the efficiency of these training methods, so we can still get good models in less time and for less money? We propose to do this by leveraging smaller language models that have previously been trained,” says Yoon Kim, an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

      Rather than discarding a previous version of a model, Kim and his collaborators use it as the building blocks for a new model. Using machine learning, their method learns to “grow” a larger model from a smaller model in a way that encodes knowledge the smaller model has already gained. This enables faster training of the larger model.

      Their technique saves about 50 percent of the computational cost required to train a large model, compared to methods that train a new model from scratch. Plus, the models trained using the MIT method performed as well as, or better than, models trained with other techniques that also use smaller models to enable faster training of larger models.

      Reducing the time it takes to train huge models could help researchers make advancements faster with less expense, while also reducing the carbon emissions generated during the training process. It could also enable smaller research groups to work with these massive models, potentially opening the door to many new advances.

      “As we look to democratize these types of technologies, making training faster and less expensive will become more important,” says Kim, senior author of a paper on this technique.

      Kim and his graduate student Lucas Torroba Hennigen wrote the paper with lead author Peihao Wang, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, as well as others at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and Columbia University. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

      The bigger the better

      Large language models like GPT-3, which is at the core of ChatGPT, are built using a neural network architecture called a transformer. A neural network, loosely based on the human brain, is composed of layers of interconnected nodes, or “neurons.” Each neuron contains parameters, which are variables learned during the training process that the neuron uses to process data.

      Transformer architectures are unique because, as these types of neural network models get bigger, they achieve much better results.

      “This has led to an arms race of companies trying to train larger and larger transformers on larger and larger datasets. More so than other architectures, it seems that transformer networks get much better with scaling. We’re just not exactly sure why this is the case,” Kim says.

      These models often have hundreds of millions or billions of learnable parameters. Training all these parameters from scratch is expensive, so researchers seek to accelerate the process.

      One effective technique is known as model growth. Using the model growth method, researchers can increase the size of a transformer by copying neurons, or even entire layers of a previous version of the network, then stacking them on top. They can make a network wider by adding new neurons to a layer or make it deeper by adding additional layers of neurons.

      In contrast to previous approaches for model growth, parameters associated with the new neurons in the expanded transformer are not just copies of the smaller network’s parameters, Kim explains. Rather, they are learned combinations of the parameters of the smaller model.

      Learning to grow

      Kim and his collaborators use machine learning to learn a linear mapping of the parameters of the smaller model. This linear map is a mathematical operation that transforms a set of input values, in this case the smaller model’s parameters, to a set of output values, in this case the parameters of the larger model.

      Their method, which they call a learned Linear Growth Operator (LiGO), learns to expand the width and depth of larger network from the parameters of a smaller network in a data-driven way.

      But the smaller model may actually be quite large — perhaps it has a hundred million parameters — and researchers might want to make a model with a billion parameters. So the LiGO technique breaks the linear map into smaller pieces that a machine-learning algorithm can handle.

      LiGO also expands width and depth simultaneously, which makes it more efficient than other methods. A user can tune how wide and deep they want the larger model to be when they input the smaller model and its parameters, Kim explains.

      When they compared their technique to the process of training a new model from scratch, as well as to model-growth methods, it was faster than all the baselines. Their method saves about 50 percent of the computational costs required to train both vision and language models, while often improving performance.

      The researchers also found they could use LiGO to accelerate transformer training even when they didn’t have access to a smaller, pretrained model.

      “I was surprised by how much better all the methods, including ours, did compared to the random initialization, train-from-scratch baselines.” Kim says.

      In the future, Kim and his collaborators are looking forward to applying LiGO to even larger models.

      The work was funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, Amazon, the IBM Research AI Hardware Center, Center for Computational Innovation at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the U.S. Army Research Office. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      New method accelerates data retrieval in huge databases

      by

      Hashing is a core operation in most online databases, like a library catalogue or an e-commerce website. A hash function generates codes that directly determine the location where data would be stored. So, using these codes, it is easier to find and retrieve the data.

      However, because traditional hash functions generate codes randomly, sometimes two pieces of data can be hashed with the same value. This causes collisions — when searching for one item points a user to many pieces of data with the same hash value. It takes much longer to find the right one, resulting in slower searches and reduced performance.

      Certain types of hash functions, known as perfect hash functions, are designed to place the data in a way that prevents collisions. But they are time-consuming to construct for each dataset and take more time to compute than traditional hash functions.

      Since hashing is used in so many applications, from database indexing to data compression to cryptography, fast and efficient hash functions are critical. So, researchers from MIT and elsewhere set out to see if they could use machine learning to build better hash functions.

      They found that, in certain situations, using learned models instead of traditional hash functions could result in half as many collisions. These learned models are created by running a machine-learning algorithm on a dataset to capture specific characteristics. The team’s experiments also showed that learned models were often more computationally efficient than perfect hash functions.

      “What we found in this work is that in some situations we can come up with a better tradeoff between the computation of the hash function and the collisions we will face. In these situations, the computation time for the hash function can be increased a bit, but at the same time its collisions can be reduced very significantly,” says Ibrahim Sabek, a postdoc in the MIT Data Systems Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

      Their research, which will be presented at the 2023 International Conference on Very Large Databases, demonstrates how a hash function can be designed to significantly speed up searches in a huge database. For instance, their technique could accelerate computational systems that scientists use to store and analyze DNA, amino acid sequences, or other biological information.

      Sabek is the co-lead author of the paper with Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) graduate student Kapil Vaidya. They are joined by co-authors Dominick Horn, a graduate student at the Technical University of Munich; Andreas Kipf, an MIT postdoc; Michael Mitzenmacher, professor of computer science at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences; and senior author Tim Kraska, associate professor of EECS at MIT and co-director of the Data, Systems, and AI Lab.

      Hashing it out

      Given a data input, or key, a traditional hash function generates a random number, or code, that corresponds to the slot where that key will be stored. To use a simple example, if there are 10 keys to be put into 10 slots, the function would generate a random integer between 1 and 10 for each input. It is highly probable that two keys will end up in the same slot, causing collisions.

      Perfect hash functions provide a collision-free alternative. Researchers give the function some extra knowledge, such as the number of slots the data are to be placed into. Then it can perform additional computations to figure out where to put each key to avoid collisions. However, these added computations make the function harder to create and less efficient.

      “We were wondering, if we know more about the data — that it will come from a particular distribution — can we use learned models to build a hash function that can actually reduce collisions?” Vaidya says.

      A data distribution shows all possible values in a dataset, and how often each value occurs. The distribution can be used to calculate the probability that a particular value is in a data sample.

      The researchers took a small sample from a dataset and used machine learning to approximate the shape of the data’s distribution, or how the data are spread out. The learned model then uses the approximation to predict the location of a key in the dataset.

      They found that learned models were easier to build and faster to run than perfect hash functions and that they led to fewer collisions than traditional hash functions if data are distributed in a predictable way. But if the data are not predictably distributed because gaps between data points vary too widely, using learned models might cause more collisions.

      “We may have a huge number of data inputs, and the gaps between consecutive inputs are very different, so learning a model to capture the data distribution of these inputs is quite difficult,” Sabek explains.

      Fewer collisions, faster results

      When data were predictably distributed, learned models could reduce the ratio of colliding keys in a dataset from 30 percent to 15 percent, compared with traditional hash functions. They were also able to achieve better throughput than perfect hash functions. In the best cases, learned models reduced the runtime by nearly 30 percent.

      As they explored the use of learned models for hashing, the researchers also found that throughput was impacted most by the number of sub-models. Each learned model is composed of smaller linear models that approximate the data distribution for different parts of the data. With more sub-models, the learned model produces a more accurate approximation, but it takes more time.

      “At a certain threshold of sub-models, you get enough information to build the approximation that you need for the hash function. But after that, it won’t lead to more improvement in collision reduction,” Sabek says.

      Building off this analysis, the researchers want to use learned models to design hash functions for other types of data. They also plan to explore learned hashing for databases in which data can be inserted or deleted. When data are updated in this way, the model needs to change accordingly, but changing the model while maintaining accuracy is a difficult problem.

      “We want to encourage the community to use machine learning inside more fundamental data structures and algorithms. Any kind of core data structure presents us with an opportunity to use machine learning to capture data properties and get better performance. There is still a lot we can explore,” Sabek says.

      “Hashing and indexing functions are core to a lot of database functionality. Given the variety of users and use cases, there is no one size fits all hashing, and learned models help adapt the database to a specific user. This paper is a great balanced analysis of the feasibility of these new techniques and does a good job of talking rigorously about the pros and cons, and helps us build our understanding of when such methods can be expected to work well,” says Murali Narayanaswamy, a principal machine learning scientist at Amazon, who was not involved with this work. “Exploring these kinds of enhancements is an exciting area of research both in academia and industry, and the kind of rigor shown in this work is critical for these methods to have large impact.”

      This work was supported, in part, by Google, Intel, Microsoft, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, and the U.S. Air Force Artificial Intelligence Accelerator. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Large language models are biased. Can logic help save them?

      by

      Turns out, even language models “think” they’re biased. When prompted in ChatGPT, the response was as follows: “Yes, language models can have biases, because the training data reflects the biases present in society from which that data was collected. For example, gender and racial biases are prevalent in many real-world datasets, and if a language model is trained on that, it can perpetuate and amplify these biases in its predictions.” A well-known but dangerous problem. 

      Humans (typically) can dabble with both logical and stereotypical reasoning when learning. Still, language models mainly mimic the latter, an unfortunate narrative we’ve seen play out ad nauseam when the ability to employ reasoning and critical thinking is absent. So would injecting logic into the fray be enough to mitigate such behavior? 

      Scientists from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) had an inkling that it might, so they set off to examine if logic-aware language models could significantly avoid more harmful stereotypes. They trained a language model to predict the relationship between two sentences, based on context and semantic meaning, using a dataset with labels for text snippets detailing if a second phrase “entails,” “contradicts,” or is neutral with respect to the first one. Using this dataset — natural language inference — they found that the newly trained models were significantly less biased than other baselines, without any extra data, data editing, or additional training algorithms.

      For example, with the premise “the person is a doctor” and the hypothesis “the person is masculine,” using these logic-trained models, the relationship would be classified as “neutral,” since there’s no logic that says the person is a man. With more common language models, two sentences might seem to be correlated due to some bias in training data, like “doctor” might be pinged with “masculine,” even when there’s no evidence that the statement is true. 

      At this point, the omnipresent nature of language models is well-known: Applications in natural language processing, speech recognition, conversational AI, and generative tasks abound. While not a nascent field of research, growing pains can take a front seat as they increase in complexity and capability. 

      “Current language models suffer from issues with fairness, computational resources, and privacy,” says MIT CSAIL postdoc Hongyin Luo, the lead author of a new paper about the work. “Many estimates say that the CO2 emission of training a language model can be higher than the lifelong emission of a car. Running these large language models is also very expensive because of the amount of parameters and the computational resources they need. With privacy, state-of-the-art language models developed by places like ChatGPT or GPT-3 have their APIs where you must upload your language, but there’s no place for sensitive information regarding things like health care or finance. To solve these challenges, we proposed a logical language model that we qualitatively measured as fair, is 500 times smaller than the state-of-the-art models, can be deployed locally, and with no human-annotated training samples for downstream tasks. Our model uses 1/400 the parameters compared with the largest language models, has better performance on some tasks, and significantly saves computation resources.” 

      This model, which has 350 million parameters, outperformed some very large-scale language models with 100 billion parameters on logic-language understanding tasks. The team evaluated, for example, popular BERT pretrained language models with their “textual entailment” ones on stereotype, profession, and emotion bias tests. The latter outperformed other models with significantly lower bias, while preserving the language modeling ability. The “fairness” was evaluated with something called ideal context association (iCAT) tests, where higher iCAT scores mean fewer stereotypes. The model had higher than 90 percent iCAT scores, while other strong language understanding models ranged between 40 to 80. 

      Luo wrote the paper alongside MIT Senior Research Scientist James Glass. They will present the work at the Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Croatia. 

      Unsurprisingly, the original pretrained language models the team examined were teeming with bias, confirmed by a slew of reasoning tests demonstrating how professional and emotion terms are significantly biased to the feminine or masculine words in the gender vocabulary. 

      With professions, a language model (which is biased) thinks that “flight attendant,” “secretary,” and “physician’s assistant” are feminine jobs, while “fisherman,” “lawyer,” and “judge” are masculine. Concerning emotions, a language model thinks that “anxious,” “depressed,” and “devastated” are feminine.

      While we may still be far away from a neutral language model utopia, this research is ongoing in that pursuit. Currently, the model is just for language understanding, so it’s based on reasoning among existing sentences. Unfortunately, it can’t generate sentences for now, so the next step for the researchers would be targeting the uber-popular generative models built with logical learning to ensure more fairness with computational efficiency. 

      “Although stereotypical reasoning is a natural part of human recognition, fairness-aware people conduct reasoning with logic rather than stereotypes when necessary,” says Luo. “We show that language models have similar properties. A language model without explicit logic learning makes plenty of biased reasoning, but adding logic learning can significantly mitigate such behavior. Furthermore, with demonstrated robust zero-shot adaptation ability, the model can be directly deployed to different tasks with more fairness, privacy, and better speed.” More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Report: CHIPS Act just the first step in addressing threats to US leadership in advanced computing

      by

      When Liu He, a Chinese economist, politician, and “chip czar,” was tapped to lead the charge in a chipmaking arms race with the United States, his message lingered in the air, leaving behind a dewy glaze of tension: “For our country, technology is not just for growth… it is a matter of survival.”

      Once upon a time, the United States’ early technological prowess positioned the nation to outpace foreign rivals and cultivate a competitive advantage for domestic businesses. Yet, 30 years later, America’s lead in advanced computing is continuing to wane. What happened?

      A new report from an MIT researcher and two colleagues sheds light on the decline in U.S. leadership. The scientists looked at high-level measures to examine the shrinkage: overall capabilities, supercomputers, applied algorithms, and semiconductor manufacturing. Through their analysis, they found that not only has China closed the computing gap with the U.S., but nearly 80 percent of American leaders in the field believe that their Chinese competitors are improving capabilities faster — which, the team says, suggests a “broad threat to U.S. competitiveness.”

      To delve deeply into the fray, the scientists conducted the Advanced Computing Users Survey, sampling 120 top-tier organizations, including universities, national labs, federal agencies, and industry. The team estimates that this group comprises one-third and one-half of all the most significant computing users in the United States.

      “Advanced computing is crucial to scientific improvement, economic growth and the competitiveness of U.S. companies,” says Neil Thompson, director of the FutureTech Research Project at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), who helped lead the study.

      Thompson, who is also a principal investigator at MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy, wrote the paper with Chad Evans, executive vice president and secretary and treasurer to the board at the Council on Competitiveness, and Daniel Armbrust, who is the co-founder, initial CEO, and member of the board of directors at Silicon Catalyst and former president of SEMATECH, the semiconductor consortium that developed industry roadmaps.

      The semiconductor, supercomputer, and algorithm bonanza

      Supercomputers — the room-sized, “giant calculators” of the hardware world — are an industry no longer dominated by the United States. Through 2015, about half of the most powerful computers were sitting firmly in the U.S., and China was growing slowly from a very slow base. But in the past six years, China has swiftly caught up, reaching near parity with America.

      This disappearing lead matters. Eighty-four percent of U.S. survey respondents said they’re computationally constrained in running essential programs. “This result was telling, given who our respondents are: the vanguard of American research enterprises and academic institutions with privileged access to advanced national supercomputing resources,” says Thompson. 

      With regards to advanced algorithms, historically, the U.S. has fronted the charge, with two-thirds of all significant improvements dominated by U.S.-born inventors. But in recent decades, U.S. dominance in algorithms has relied on bringing in foreign talent to work in the U.S., which the researchers say is now in jeopardy. China has outpaced the U.S. and many other countries in churning out PhDs in STEM fields since 2007, with one report postulating a near-distant future (2025) where China will be home to nearly twice as many PhDs than in the U.S. China’s rise in algorithms can also be seen with the “Gordon Bell Prize,” an achievement for outstanding work in harnessing the power of supercomputers in varied applications. U.S. winners historically dominated the prize, but China has now equaled or surpassed Americans’ performance in the past five years.

      While the researchers note the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 is a critical step in re-establishing the foundation of success for advanced computing, they propose recommendations to the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

      First, they suggest democratizing access to U.S. supercomputing by building more mid-tier systems that push boundaries for many users, as well as building tools so users scaling up computations can have less up-front resource investment. They also recommend increasing the pool of innovators by funding many more electrical engineers and computer scientists being trained with longer-term US residency incentives and scholarships. Finally, in addition to this new framework, the scientists urge taking advantage of what already exists, via providing the private sector access to experimentation with high-performance computing through supercomputing sites in academia and national labs.

      All that and a bag of chips

      Computing improvements depend on continuous advances in transistor density and performance, but creating robust, new chips necessitate a harmonious blend of design and manufacturing.

      Over the last six years, China was not known as the savants of noteworthy chips. In fact, in the past five decades, the U.S. designed most of them. But this changed in the past six years when China created the HiSilicon Kirin 9000, propelling itself to the international frontier. This success was mainly obtained through partnerships with leading global chip designers that began in the 2000s. Now, China now has 14 companies among the world’s top 50 fabless designers. A decade ago, there was only one. 

      Competitive semiconductor manufacturing has been more mixed, where U.S.-led policies and internal execution issues have slowed China’s rise, but as of July 2022, the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) has evidence of 7 nanometer logic, which was not expected until much later. However, with extreme ultraviolet export restrictions, progress below 7 nm means domestic technology development would be expensive. Currently, China is only at parity or better in two out of 12 segments of the semiconductor supply chain. Still, with government policy and investments, the team expects a whopping increase to seven segments in 10 years. So, for the moment, the U.S. retains leadership in hardware manufacturing, but with fewer dimensions of advantage.

      The authors recommend that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy work with key national agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, to define initiatives to build the hardware and software systems needed for important computing paradigms and workloads critical for economic and security goals. “It is crucial that American enterprises can get the benefit of faster computers,” says Thompson. “With Moore’s Law slowing down, the best way to do this is to create a portfolio of specialized chips (or “accelerators”) that are customized to our needs.”

      The scientists further believe that to lead the next generation of computing, four areas must be addressed. First, by issuing grand challenges to the CHIPS Act National Semiconductor Technology Center, researchers and startups would be motivated to invest in research and development and to seek startup capital for new technologies in areas such as spintronics, neuromorphics, optical and quantum computing, and optical interconnect fabrics. By supporting allies in passing similar acts, overall investment in these technologies would increase, and supply chains would become more aligned and secure. Establishing test beds for researchers to test algorithms on new computing architectures and hardware would provide an essential platform for innovation and discovery. Finally, planning for post-exascale systems that achieve higher levels of performance through next-generation advances would ensure that current commercial technologies don’t limit future computing systems.

      “The advanced computing landscape is in rapid flux — technologically, economically, and politically, with both new opportunities for innovation and rising global rivalries,” says Daniel Reed, Presidential Professor and professor of computer science and electrical and computer engineering at the University of Utah. “The transformational insights from both deep learning and computational modeling depend on both continued semiconductor advances and their instantiation in leading edge, large-scale computing systems — hyperscale clouds and high-performance computing systems. Although the U.S. has historically led the world in both advanced semiconductors and high-performance computing, other nations have recognized that these capabilities are integral to 21st century economic competitiveness and national security, and they are investing heavily.”

      The research was funded, in part, through Thompson’s grant from Good Ventures, which supports his FutureTech Research Group. The paper is being published by the Georgetown Public Policy Review. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A new chip for decoding data transmissions demonstrates record-breaking energy efficiency

      by

      Imagine using an online banking app to deposit money into your account. Like all information sent over the internet, those communications could be corrupted by noise that inserts errors into the data.

      To overcome this problem, senders encode data before they are transmitted, and then a receiver uses a decoding algorithm to correct errors and recover the original message. In some instances, data are received with reliability information that helps the decoder figure out which parts of a transmission are likely errors.

      Researchers at MIT and elsewhere have developed a decoder chip that employs a new statistical model to use this reliability information in a way that is much simpler and faster than conventional techniques.

      Their chip uses a universal decoding algorithm the team previously developed, which can unravel any error correcting code. Typically, decoding hardware can only process one particular type of code. This new, universal decoder chip has broken the record for energy-efficient decoding, performing between 10 and 100 times better than other hardware.

      This advance could enable mobile devices with fewer chips, since they would no longer need separate hardware for multiple codes. This would reduce the amount of material needed for fabrication, cutting costs and improving sustainability. By making the decoding process less energy intensive, the chip could also improve device performance and lengthen battery life. It could be especially useful for demanding applications like augmented and virtual reality and 5G networks.

      “This is the first time anyone has broken below the 1 picojoule-per-bit barrier for decoding. That is roughly the same amount of energy you need to transmit a bit inside the system. It had been a big symbolic threshold, but it also changes the balance in the receiver of what might be the most pressing part from an energy perspective — we can move that away from the decoder to other elements,” says Muriel Médard, the School of Science NEC Professor of Software Science and Engineering, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and a co-author of a paper presenting the new chip.

      Médard’s co-authors include lead author Arslan Riaz, a graduate student at Boston University (BU); Rabia Tugce Yazicigil, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at BU; and Ken R. Duffy, then director of the Hamilton Institute at Maynooth University and now a professor at Northeastern University, as well as others from MIT, BU, and Maynooth University. The work is being presented at the International Solid-States Circuits Conference.

      Smarter sorting

      Digital data are transmitted over a network in the form of bits (0s and 1s). A sender encodes data by adding an error-correcting code, which is a redundant string of 0s and 1s that can be viewed as a hash. Information about this hash is held in a specific code book. A decoding algorithm at the receiver, designed for this particular code, uses its code book and the hash structure to retrieve the original information, which may have been jumbled by noise. Since each algorithm is code-specific, and most require dedicated hardware, a device would need many chips to decode different codes.

      The researchers previously demonstrated GRAND (Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding), a universal decoding algorithm that can crack any code. GRAND works by guessing the noise that affected the transmission, subtracting that noise pattern from the received data, and then checking what remains in a code book. It guesses a series of noise patterns in the order they are likely to occur.

      Data are often received with reliability information, also called soft information, that helps a decoder figure out which pieces are errors. The new decoding chip, called ORBGRAND (Ordered Reliability Bits GRAND), uses this reliability information to sort data based on how likely each bit is to be an error.

      But it isn’t as simple as ordering single bits. While the most unreliable bit might be the likeliest error, perhaps the third and fourth most unreliable bits together are as likely to be an error as the seventh-most unreliable bit. ORBGRAND uses a new statistical model that can sort bits in this fashion, considering that multiple bits together are as likely to be an error as some single bits.

      “If your car isn’t working, soft information might tell you that it is probably the battery. But if it isn’t the battery alone, maybe it is the battery and the alternator together that are causing the problem. This is how a rational person would troubleshoot — you’d say that it could actually be these two things together before going down the list to something that is much less likely,” Médard says.

      This is a much more efficient approach than traditional decoders, which would instead look at the code structure and have a performance that is generally designed for the worst-case.

      “With a traditional decoder, you’d pull out the blueprint of the car and examine each and every piece. You’ll find the problem, but it will take you a long time and you’ll get very frustrated,” Médard explains.

      ORBGRAND stops sorting as soon as a code word is found, which is often very soon. The chip also employs parallelization, generating and testing multiple noise patterns simultaneously so it finds the code word faster. Because the decoder stops working once it finds the code word, its energy consumption stays low even though it runs multiple processes simultaneously.

      Record-breaking efficiency

      When they compared their approach to other chips, ORBGRAND decoded with maximum accuracy while consuming only 0.76 picojoules of energy per bit, breaking the previous performance record. ORBGRAND consumes between 10 and 100 times less energy than other devices.

      One of the biggest challenges of developing the new chip came from this reduced energy consumption, Médard says. With ORBGRAND, generating noise sequences is now so energy-efficient that other processes the researchers hadn’t focused on before, like checking the code word in a code book, consume most of the effort.

      “Now, this checking process, which is like turning on the car to see if it works, is the hardest part. So, we need to find more efficient ways to do that,” she says.

      The team is also exploring ways to change the modulation of transmissions so they can take advantage of the improved efficiency of the ORBGRAND chip. They also plan to see how their technique could be utilized to more efficiently manage multiple transmissions that overlap.

      The research is funded, in part, by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Science Foundation Ireland. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Efficient technique improves machine-learning models’ reliability

      by

      Powerful machine-learning models are being used to help people tackle tough problems such as identifying disease in medical images or detecting road obstacles for autonomous vehicles. But machine-learning models can make mistakes, so in high-stakes settings it’s critical that humans know when to trust a model’s predictions.

      Uncertainty quantification is one tool that improves a model’s reliability; the model produces a score along with the prediction that expresses a confidence level that the prediction is correct. While uncertainty quantification can be useful, existing methods typically require retraining the entire model to give it that ability. Training involves showing a model millions of examples so it can learn a task. Retraining then requires millions of new data inputs, which can be expensive and difficult to obtain, and also uses huge amounts of computing resources.

      Researchers at MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab have now developed a technique that enables a model to perform more effective uncertainty quantification, while using far fewer computing resources than other methods, and no additional data. Their technique, which does not require a user to retrain or modify a model, is flexible enough for many applications.

      The technique involves creating a simpler companion model that assists the original machine-learning model in estimating uncertainty. This smaller model is designed to identify different types of uncertainty, which can help researchers drill down on the root cause of inaccurate predictions.

      “Uncertainty quantification is essential for both developers and users of machine-learning models. Developers can utilize uncertainty measurements to help develop more robust models, while for users, it can add another layer of trust and reliability when deploying models in the real world. Our work leads to a more flexible and practical solution for uncertainty quantification,” says Maohao Shen, an electrical engineering and computer science graduate student and lead author of a paper on this technique.

      Shen wrote the paper with Yuheng Bu, a former postdoc in the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) who is now an assistant professor at the University of Florida; Prasanna Sattigeri, Soumya Ghosh, and Subhro Das, research staff members at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab; and senior author Gregory Wornell, the Sumitomo Professor in Engineering who leads the Signals, Information, and Algorithms Laboratory RLE and is a member of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. The research will be presented at the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

      Quantifying uncertainty

      In uncertainty quantification, a machine-learning model generates a numerical score with each output to reflect its confidence in that prediction’s accuracy. Incorporating uncertainty quantification by building a new model from scratch or retraining an existing model typically requires a large amount of data and expensive computation, which is often impractical. What’s more, existing methods sometimes have the unintended consequence of degrading the quality of the model’s predictions.

      The MIT and MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab researchers have thus zeroed in on the following problem: Given a pretrained model, how can they enable it to perform effective uncertainty quantification?

      They solve this by creating a smaller and simpler model, known as a metamodel, that attaches to the larger, pretrained model and uses the features that larger model has already learned to help it make uncertainty quantification assessments.

      “The metamodel can be applied to any pretrained model. It is better to have access to the internals of the model, because we can get much more information about the base model, but it will also work if you just have a final output. It can still predict a confidence score,” Sattigeri says.

      They design the metamodel to produce the uncertainty quantification output using a technique that includes both types of uncertainty: data uncertainty and model uncertainty. Data uncertainty is caused by corrupted data or inaccurate labels and can only be reduced by fixing the dataset or gathering new data. In model uncertainty, the model is not sure how to explain the newly observed data and might make incorrect predictions, most likely because it hasn’t seen enough similar training examples. This issue is an especially challenging but common problem when models are deployed. In real-world settings, they often encounter data that are different from the training dataset.

      “Has the reliability of your decisions changed when you use the model in a new setting? You want some way to have confidence in whether it is working in this new regime or whether you need to collect training data for this particular new setting,” Wornell says.

      Validating the quantification

      Once a model produces an uncertainty quantification score, the user still needs some assurance that the score itself is accurate. Researchers often validate accuracy by creating a smaller dataset, held out from the original training data, and then testing the model on the held-out data. However, this technique does not work well in measuring uncertainty quantification because the model can achieve good prediction accuracy while still being over-confident, Shen says.

      They created a new validation technique by adding noise to the data in the validation set — this noisy data is more like out-of-distribution data that can cause model uncertainty. The researchers use this noisy dataset to evaluate uncertainty quantifications.

      They tested their approach by seeing how well a meta-model could capture different types of uncertainty for various downstream tasks, including out-of-distribution detection and misclassification detection. Their method not only outperformed all the baselines in each downstream task but also required less training time to achieve those results.

      This technique could help researchers enable more machine-learning models to effectively perform uncertainty quantification, ultimately aiding users in making better decisions about when to trust predictions.

      Moving forward, the researchers want to adapt their technique for newer classes of models, such as large language models that have a different structure than a traditional neural network, Shen says.

      The work was funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and the U.S. National Science Foundation. More