Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      When should someone trust an AI assistant’s predictions?

      by

      In a busy hospital, a radiologist is using an artificial intelligence system to help her diagnose medical conditions based on patients’ X-ray images. Using the AI system can help her make faster diagnoses, but how does she know when to trust the AI’s predictions?

      She doesn’t. Instead, she may rely on her expertise, a confidence level provided by the system itself, or an explanation of how the algorithm made its prediction — which may look convincing but still be wrong — to make an estimation.

      To help people better understand when to trust an AI “teammate,” MIT researchers created an onboarding technique that guides humans to develop a more accurate understanding of those situations in which a machine makes correct predictions and those in which it makes incorrect predictions.

      By showing people how the AI complements their abilities, the training technique could help humans make better decisions or come to conclusions faster when working with AI agents.

      “We propose a teaching phase where we gradually introduce the human to this AI model so they can, for themselves, see its weaknesses and strengths,” says Hussein Mozannar, a graduate student in the Social and Engineering Systems doctoral program within the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) who is also a researcher with the Clinical Machine Learning Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science. “We do this by mimicking the way the human will interact with the AI in practice, but we intervene to give them feedback to help them understand each interaction they are making with the AI.”

      Mozannar wrote the paper with Arvind Satyanarayan, an assistant professor of computer science who leads the Visualization Group in CSAIL; and senior author David Sontag, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT and leader of the Clinical Machine Learning Group. The research will be presented at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in February.

      Mental models

      This work focuses on the mental models humans build about others. If the radiologist is not sure about a case, she may ask a colleague who is an expert in a certain area. From past experience and her knowledge of this colleague, she has a mental model of his strengths and weaknesses that she uses to assess his advice.

      Humans build the same kinds of mental models when they interact with AI agents, so it is important those models are accurate, Mozannar says. Cognitive science suggests that humans make decisions for complex tasks by remembering past interactions and experiences. So, the researchers designed an onboarding process that provides representative examples of the human and AI working together, which serve as reference points the human can draw on in the future. They began by creating an algorithm that can identify examples that will best teach the human about the AI.

      “We first learn a human expert’s biases and strengths, using observations of their past decisions unguided by AI,” Mozannar says. “We combine our knowledge about the human with what we know about the AI to see where it will be helpful for the human to rely on the AI. Then we obtain cases where we know the human should rely on the AI and similar cases where the human should not rely on the AI.”

      The researchers tested their onboarding technique on a passage-based question answering task: The user receives a written passage and a question whose answer is contained in the passage. The user then has to answer the question and can click a button to “let the AI answer.” The user can’t see the AI answer in advance, however, requiring them to rely on their mental model of the AI. The onboarding process they developed begins by showing these examples to the user, who tries to make a prediction with the help of the AI system. The human may be right or wrong, and the AI may be right or wrong, but in either case, after solving the example, the user sees the correct answer and an explanation for why the AI chose its prediction. To help the user generalize from the example, two contrasting examples are shown that explain why the AI got it right or wrong.

      For instance, perhaps the training question asks which of two plants is native to more continents, based on a convoluted paragraph from a botany textbook. The human can answer on her own or let the AI system answer. Then, she sees two follow-up examples that help her get a better sense of the AI’s abilities. Perhaps the AI is wrong on a follow-up question about fruits but right on a question about geology. In each example, the words the system used to make its prediction are highlighted. Seeing the highlighted words helps the human understand the limits of the AI agent, explains Mozannar.

      To help the user retain what they have learned, the user then writes down the rule she infers from this teaching example, such as “This AI is not good at predicting flowers.” She can then refer to these rules later when working with the agent in practice. These rules also constitute a formalization of the user’s mental model of the AI.

      The impact of teaching

      The researchers tested this teaching technique with three groups of participants. One group went through the entire onboarding technique, another group did not receive the follow-up comparison examples, and the baseline group didn’t receive any teaching but could see the AI’s answer in advance.

      “The participants who received teaching did just as well as the participants who didn’t receive teaching but could see the AI’s answer. So, the conclusion there is they are able to simulate the AI’s answer as well as if they had seen it,” Mozannar says.

      The researchers dug deeper into the data to see the rules individual participants wrote. They found that almost 50 percent of the people who received training wrote accurate lessons of the AI’s abilities. Those who had accurate lessons were right on 63 percent of the examples, whereas those who didn’t have accurate lessons were right on 54 percent. And those who didn’t receive teaching but could see the AI answers were right on 57 percent of the questions.

      “When teaching is successful, it has a significant impact. That is the takeaway here. When we are able to teach participants effectively, they are able to do better than if you actually gave them the answer,” he says.

      But the results also show there is still a gap. Only 50 percent of those who were trained built accurate mental models of the AI, and even those who did were only right 63 percent of the time. Even though they learned accurate lessons, they didn’t always follow their own rules, Mozannar says.

      That is one question that leaves the researchers scratching their heads — even if people know the AI should be right, why won’t they listen to their own mental model? They want to explore this question in the future, as well as refine the onboarding process to reduce the amount of time it takes. They are also interested in running user studies with more complex AI models, particularly in health care settings.

      “When humans collaborate with other humans, we rely heavily on knowing what our collaborators’ strengths and weaknesses are — it helps us know when (and when not) to lean on the other person for assistance. I’m glad to see this research applying that principle to humans and AI,” says Carrie Cai, a staff research scientist in the People + AI Research and Responsible AI groups at Google, who was not involved with this research. “Teaching users about an AI’s strengths and weaknesses is essential to producing positive human-AI joint outcomes.” 

      This research was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      The promise and pitfalls of artificial intelligence explored at TEDxMIT event

      by

      Scientists, students, and community members came together last month to discuss the promise and pitfalls of artificial intelligence at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) for the fourth TEDxMIT event held at MIT. 

      Attendees were entertained and challenged as they explored “the good and bad of computing,” explained CSAIL Director Professor Daniela Rus, who organized the event with John Werner, an MIT fellow and managing director of Link Ventures; MIT sophomore Lucy Zhao; and grad student Jessica Karaguesian. “As you listen to the talks today,” Rus told the audience, “consider how our world is made better by AI, and also our intrinsic responsibilities for ensuring that the technology is deployed for the greater good.”

      Rus mentioned some new capabilities that could be enabled by AI: an automated personal assistant that could monitor your sleep phases and wake you at the optimal time, as well as on-body sensors that monitor everything from your posture to your digestive system. “Intelligent assistance can help empower and augment our lives. But these intriguing possibilities should only be pursued if we can simultaneously resolve the challenges that these technologies bring,” said Rus. 

      The next speaker, CSAIL principal investigator and professor of electrical engineering and computer science Manolis Kellis, started off by suggesting what sounded like an unattainable goal — using AI to “put an end to evolution as we know it.” Looking at it from a computer science perspective, he said, what we call evolution is basically a brute force search. “You’re just exploring all of the search space, creating billions of copies of every one of your programs, and just letting them fight against each other. This is just brutal. And it’s also completely slow. It took us billions of years to get here.” Might it be possible, he asked, to speed up evolution and make it less messy?

      The answer, Kellis said, is that we can do better, and that we’re already doing better: “We’re not killing people like Sparta used to, throwing the weaklings off the mountain. We are truly saving diversity.”

      Knowledge, moreover, is now being widely shared, passed on “horizontally” through accessible information sources, he noted, rather than “vertically,” from parent to offspring. “I would like to argue that competition in the human species has been replaced by collaboration. Despite having a fixed cognitive hardware, we have software upgrades that are enabled by culture, by the 20 years that our children spend in school to fill their brains with everything that humanity has learned, regardless of which family came up with it. This is the secret of our great acceleration” — the fact that human advancement in recent centuries has vastly out-clipped evolution’s sluggish pace.

      The next step, Kellis said, is to harness insights about evolution in order to combat an individual’s genetic susceptibility to disease. “Our current approach is simply insufficient,” he added. “We’re treating manifestations of disease, not the causes of disease.” A key element in his lab’s ambitious strategy to transform medicine is to identify “the causal pathways through which genetic predisposition manifests. It’s only by understanding these pathways that we can truly manipulate disease causation and reverse the disease circuitry.” 

      Kellis was followed by Aleksander Madry, MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and CSAIL principal investigator, who told the crowd, “progress in AI is happening, and it’s happening fast.” Computer programs can routinely beat humans in games like chess, poker, and Go. So should we be worried about AI surpassing humans? 

      Madry, for one, is not afraid — or at least not yet. And some of that reassurance stems from research that has led him to the following conclusion: Despite its considerable success, AI, especially in the form of machine learning, is lazy. “Think about being lazy as this kind of smart student who doesn’t really want to study for an exam. Instead, what he does is just study all the past years’ exams and just look for patterns. Instead of trying to actually learn, he just tries to pass the test. And this is exactly the same way in which current AI is lazy.”

      A machine-learning model might recognize grazing sheep, for instance, simply by picking out pictures that have green grass in them. If a model is trained to identify fish from photos of anglers proudly displaying their catches, Madry explained, “the model figures out that if there’s a human holding something in the picture, I will just classify it as a fish.” The consequences can be more serious for an AI model intended to pick out malignant tumors. If the model is trained on images containing rulers that indicate the size of tumors, the model may end up selecting only those photos that have rulers in them.

      This leads to Madry’s biggest concerns about AI in its present form. “AI is beating us now,” he noted. “But the way it does it [involves] a little bit of cheating.” He fears that we will apply AI “in some way in which this mismatch between what the model actually does versus what we think it does will have some catastrophic consequences.” People relying on AI, especially in potentially life-or-death situations, need to be much more mindful of its current limitations, Madry cautioned.

      There were 10 speakers altogether, and the last to take the stage was MIT associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science and CSAIL principal investigator Marzyeh Ghassemi, who laid out her vision for how AI could best contribute to general health and well-being. But in order for that to happen, its models must be trained on accurate, diverse, and unbiased medical data.

      It’s important to focus on the data, Ghassemi stressed, because these models are learning from us. “Since our data is human-generated … a neural network is learning how to practice from a doctor. But doctors are human, and humans make mistakes. And if a human makes a mistake, and we train an AI from that, the AI will, too. Garbage in, garbage out. But it’s not like the garbage is distributed equally.”

      She pointed out that many subgroups receive worse care from medical practitioners, and members of these subgroups die from certain conditions at disproportionately high rates. This is an area, Ghassemi said, “where AI can actually help. This is something we can fix.” Her group is developing machine-learning models that are robust, private, and fair. What’s holding them back is neither algorithms nor GPUs. It’s data. Once we collect reliable data from diverse sources, Ghassemi added, we might start reaping the benefits that AI can bring to the realm of health care.

      In addition to CSAIL speakers, there were talks from members across MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society; the MIT Mobility Initiative; the MIT Media Lab; and the SENSEable City Lab.

      The proceedings concluded on that hopeful note. Rus and Werner then thanked everyone for coming. “Please continue to reflect about the good and bad of computing,” Rus urged. “And we look forward to seeing you back here in May for the next TEDxMIT event.”

      The exact theme of the spring 2022 gathering will have something to do with “superpowers.” But — if December’s mind-bending presentations were any indication — the May offering is almost certain to give its attendees plenty to think about. And maybe provide the inspiration for a startup or two. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Q&A: Cathy Wu on developing algorithms to safely integrate robots into our world

      by

      Cathy Wu is the Gilbert W. Winslow Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a member of the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society. As an undergraduate, Wu won MIT’s toughest robotics competition, and as a graduate student took the University of California at Berkeley’s first-ever course on deep reinforcement learning. Now back at MIT, she’s working to improve the flow of robots in Amazon warehouses under the Science Hub, a new collaboration between the tech giant and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing. Outside of the lab and classroom, Wu can be found running, drawing, pouring lattes at home, and watching YouTube videos on math and infrastructure via 3Blue1Brown and Practical Engineering. She recently took a break from all of that to talk about her work.

      Q: What put you on the path to robotics and self-driving cars?

      A: My parents always wanted a doctor in the family. However, I’m bad at following instructions and became the wrong kind of doctor! Inspired by my physics and computer science classes in high school, I decided to study engineering. I wanted to help as many people as a medical doctor could.

      At MIT, I looked for applications in energy, education, and agriculture, but the self-driving car was the first to grab me. It has yet to let go! Ninety-four percent of serious car crashes are caused by human error and could potentially be prevented by self-driving cars. Autonomous vehicles could also ease traffic congestion, save energy, and improve mobility.

      I first learned about self-driving cars from Seth Teller during his guest lecture for the course Mobile Autonomous Systems Lab (MASLAB), in which MIT undergraduates compete to build the best full-functioning robot from scratch. Our ball-fetching bot, Putzputz, won first place. From there, I took more classes in machine learning, computer vision, and transportation, and joined Teller’s lab. I also competed in several mobility-related hackathons, including one sponsored by Hubway, now known as Blue Bike.

      Q: You’ve explored ways to help humans and autonomous vehicles interact more smoothly. What makes this problem so hard?

      A: Both systems are highly complex, and our classical modeling tools are woefully insufficient. Integrating autonomous vehicles into our existing mobility systems is a huge undertaking. For example, we don’t know whether autonomous vehicles will cut energy use by 40 percent, or double it. We need more powerful tools to cut through the uncertainty. My PhD thesis at Berkeley tried to do this. I developed scalable optimization methods in the areas of robot control, state estimation, and system design. These methods could help decision-makers anticipate future scenarios and design better systems to accommodate both humans and robots.

      Q: How is deep reinforcement learning, combining deep and reinforcement learning algorithms, changing robotics?

      A: I took John Schulman and Pieter Abbeel’s reinforcement learning class at Berkeley in 2015 shortly after Deepmind published their breakthrough paper in Nature. They had trained an agent via deep learning and reinforcement learning to play “Space Invaders” and a suite of Atari games at superhuman levels. That created quite some buzz. A year later, I started to incorporate reinforcement learning into problems involving mixed traffic systems, in which only some cars are automated. I realized that classical control techniques couldn’t handle the complex nonlinear control problems I was formulating.

      Deep RL is now mainstream but it’s by no means pervasive in robotics, which still relies heavily on classical model-based control and planning methods. Deep learning continues to be important for processing raw sensor data like camera images and radio waves, and reinforcement learning is gradually being incorporated. I see traffic systems as gigantic multi-robot systems. I’m excited for an upcoming collaboration with Utah’s Department of Transportation to apply reinforcement learning to coordinate cars with traffic signals, reducing congestion and thus carbon emissions.

      Q: You’ve talked about the MIT course, 6.007 (Signals and Systems), and its impact on you. What about it spoke to you?

      A: The mindset. That problems that look messy can be analyzed with common, and sometimes simple, tools. Signals are transformed by systems in various ways, but what do these abstract terms mean, anyway? A mechanical system can take a signal like gears turning at some speed and transform it into a lever turning at another speed. A digital system can take binary digits and turn them into other binary digits or a string of letters or an image. Financial systems can take news and transform it via millions of trading decisions into stock prices. People take in signals every day through advertisements, job offers, gossip, and so on, and translate them into actions that in turn influence society and other people. This humble class on signals and systems linked mechanical, digital, and societal systems and showed me how foundational tools can cut through the noise.

      Q: In your project with Amazon you’re training warehouse robots to pick up, sort, and deliver goods. What are the technical challenges?

      A: This project involves assigning robots to a given task and routing them there. [Professor] Cynthia Barnhart’s team is focused on task assignment, and mine, on path planning. Both problems are considered combinatorial optimization problems because the solution involves a combination of choices. As the number of tasks and robots increases, the number of possible solutions grows exponentially. It’s called the curse of dimensionality. Both problems are what we call NP Hard; there may not be an efficient algorithm to solve them. Our goal is to devise a shortcut.

      Routing a single robot for a single task isn’t difficult. It’s like using Google Maps to find the shortest path home. It can be solved efficiently with several algorithms, including Dijkstra’s. But warehouses resemble small cities with hundreds of robots. When traffic jams occur, customers can’t get their packages as quickly. Our goal is to develop algorithms that find the most efficient paths for all of the robots.

      Q: Are there other applications?

      A: Yes. The algorithms we test in Amazon warehouses might one day help to ease congestion in real cities. Other potential applications include controlling planes on runways, swarms of drones in the air, and even characters in video games. These algorithms could also be used for other robotic planning tasks like scheduling and routing.

      Q: AI is evolving rapidly. Where do you hope to see the big breakthroughs coming?

      A: I’d like to see deep learning and deep RL used to solve societal problems involving mobility, infrastructure, social media, health care, and education. Deep RL now has a toehold in robotics and industrial applications like chip design, but we still need to be careful in applying it to systems with humans in the loop. Ultimately, we want to design systems for people. Currently, we simply don’t have the right tools.

      Q: What worries you most about AI taking on more and more specialized tasks?

      A: AI has the potential for tremendous good, but it could also help to accelerate the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Our political and regulatory systems could help to integrate AI into society and minimize job losses and income inequality, but I worry that they’re not equipped yet to handle the firehose of AI.

      Q: What’s the last great book you read?

      A: “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” by Bill Gates. I absolutely loved the way that Gates was able to take an overwhelmingly complex topic and distill it down into words that everyone can understand. His optimism inspires me to keep pushing on applications of AI and robotics to help avoid a climate disaster. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Nonsense can make sense to machine-learning models

      by

      For all that neural networks can accomplish, we still don’t really understand how they operate. Sure, we can program them to learn, but making sense of a machine’s decision-making process remains much like a fancy puzzle with a dizzying, complex pattern where plenty of integral pieces have yet to be fitted. 

      If a model was trying to classify an image of said puzzle, for example, it could encounter well-known, but annoying adversarial attacks, or even more run-of-the-mill data or processing issues. But a new, more subtle type of failure recently identified by MIT scientists is another cause for concern: “overinterpretation,” where algorithms make confident predictions based on details that don’t make sense to humans, like random patterns or image borders. 

      This could be particularly worrisome for high-stakes environments, like split-second decisions for self-driving cars, and medical diagnostics for diseases that need more immediate attention. Autonomous vehicles in particular rely heavily on systems that can accurately understand surroundings and then make quick, safe decisions. The network used specific backgrounds, edges, or particular patterns of the sky to classify traffic lights and street signs — irrespective of what else was in the image. 

      The team found that neural networks trained on popular datasets like CIFAR-10 and ImageNet suffered from overinterpretation. Models trained on CIFAR-10, for example, made confident predictions even when 95 percent of input images were missing, and the remainder is senseless to humans. 

      “Overinterpretation is a dataset problem that’s caused by these nonsensical signals in datasets. Not only are these high-confidence images unrecognizable, but they contain less than 10 percent of the original image in unimportant areas, such as borders. We found that these images were meaningless to humans, yet models can still classify them with high confidence,” says Brandon Carter, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory PhD student and lead author on a paper about the research. 

      Deep-image classifiers are widely used. In addition to medical diagnosis and boosting autonomous vehicle technology, there are use cases in security, gaming, and even an app that tells you if something is or isn’t a hot dog, because sometimes we need reassurance. The tech in discussion works by processing individual pixels from tons of pre-labeled images for the network to “learn.” 

      Image classification is hard, because machine-learning models have the ability to latch onto these nonsensical subtle signals. Then, when image classifiers are trained on datasets such as ImageNet, they can make seemingly reliable predictions based on those signals. 

      Although these nonsensical signals can lead to model fragility in the real world, the signals are actually valid in the datasets, meaning overinterpretation can’t be diagnosed using typical evaluation methods based on that accuracy. 

      To find the rationale for the model’s prediction on a particular input, the methods in the present study start with the full image and repeatedly ask, what can I remove from this image? Essentially, it keeps covering up the image, until you’re left with the smallest piece that still makes a confident decision. 

      To that end, it could also be possible to use these methods as a type of validation criteria. For example, if you have an autonomously driving car that uses a trained machine-learning method for recognizing stop signs, you could test that method by identifying the smallest input subset that constitutes a stop sign. If that consists of a tree branch, a particular time of day, or something that’s not a stop sign, you could be concerned that the car might come to a stop at a place it’s not supposed to.

      While it may seem that the model is the likely culprit here, the datasets are more likely to blame. “There’s the question of how we can modify the datasets in a way that would enable models to be trained to more closely mimic how a human would think about classifying images and therefore, hopefully, generalize better in these real-world scenarios, like autonomous driving and medical diagnosis, so that the models don’t have this nonsensical behavior,” says Carter. 

      This may mean creating datasets in more controlled environments. Currently, it’s just pictures that are extracted from public domains that are then classified. But if you want to do object identification, for example, it might be necessary to train models with objects with an uninformative background. 

      This work was supported by Schmidt Futures and the National Institutes of Health. Carter wrote the paper alongside Siddhartha Jain and Jonas Mueller, scientists at Amazon, and MIT Professor David Gifford. They are presenting the work at the 2021 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Design’s new frontier

      by

      In the 1960s, the advent of computer-aided design (CAD) sparked a revolution in design. For his PhD thesis in 1963, MIT Professor Ivan Sutherland developed Sketchpad, a game-changing software program that enabled users to draw, move, and resize shapes on a computer. Over the course of the next few decades, CAD software reshaped how everything from consumer products to buildings and airplanes were designed.

      “CAD was part of the first wave in computing in design. The ability of researchers and practitioners to represent and model designs using computers was a major breakthrough and still is one of the biggest outcomes of design research, in my opinion,” says Maria Yang, Gail E. Kendall Professor and director of MIT’s Ideation Lab.

      Innovations in 3D printing during the 1980s and 1990s expanded CAD’s capabilities beyond traditional injection molding and casting methods, providing designers even more flexibility. Designers could sketch, ideate, and develop prototypes or models faster and more efficiently. Meanwhile, with the push of a button, software like that developed by Professor Emeritus David Gossard of MIT’s CAD Lab could solve equations simultaneously to produce a new geometry on the fly.

      In recent years, mechanical engineers have expanded the computing tools they use to ideate, design, and prototype. More sophisticated algorithms and the explosion of machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies have sparked a second revolution in design engineering.

      Researchers and faculty at MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering are utilizing these technologies to re-imagine how the products, systems, and infrastructures we use are designed. These researchers are at the forefront of the new frontier in design.

      Computational design

      Faez Ahmed wants to reinvent the wheel, or at least the bicycle wheel. He and his team at MIT’s Design Computation & Digital Engineering Lab (DeCoDE) use an artificial intelligence-driven design method that can generate entirely novel and improved designs for a range of products — including the traditional bicycle. They create advanced computational methods to blend human-driven design with simulation-based design.

      “The focus of our DeCoDE lab is computational design. We are looking at how we can create machine learning and AI algorithms to help us discover new designs that are optimized based on specific performance parameters,” says Ahmed, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.

      For their work using AI-driven design for bicycles, Ahmed and his collaborator Professor Daniel Frey wanted to make it easier to design customizable bicycles, and by extension, encourage more people to use bicycles over transportation methods that emit greenhouse gases.

      To start, the group gathered a dataset of 4,500 bicycle designs. Using this massive dataset, they tested the limits of what machine learning could do. First, they developed algorithms to group bicycles that looked similar together and explore the design space. They then created machine learning models that could successfully predict what components are key in identifying a bicycle style, such as a road bike versus a mountain bike.

      Once the algorithms were good enough at identifying bicycle designs and parts, the team proposed novel machine learning tools that could use this data to create a unique and creative design for a bicycle based on certain performance parameters and rider dimensions.

      Ahmed used a generative adversarial network — or GAN — as the basis of this model. GAN models utilize neural networks that can create new designs based on vast amounts of data. However, using GAN models alone would result in homogeneous designs that lack novelty and can’t be assessed in terms of performance. To address these issues in design problems, Ahmed has developed a new method which he calls “PaDGAN,” performance augmented diverse GAN.

      “When we apply this type of model, what we see is that we can get large improvements in the diversity, quality, as well as novelty of the designs,” Ahmed explains.

      Using this approach, Ahmed’s team developed an open-source computational design tool for bicycles freely available on their lab website. They hope to further develop a set of generalizable tools that can be used across industries and products.

      Longer term, Ahmed has his sights set on loftier goals. He hopes the computational design tools he develops could lead to “design democratization,” putting more power in the hands of the end user.

      “With these algorithms, you can have more individualization where the algorithm assists a customer in understanding their needs and helps them create a product that satisfies their exact requirements,” he adds.

      Using algorithms to democratize the design process is a goal shared by Stefanie Mueller, an associate professor in electrical engineering and computer science and mechanical engineering.

      Personal fabrication

      Platforms like Instagram give users the freedom to instantly edit their photographs or videos using filters. In one click, users can alter the palette, tone, and brightness of their content by applying filters that range from bold colors to sepia-toned or black-and-white. Mueller, X-Window Consortium Career Development Professor, wants to bring this concept of the Instagram filter to the physical world.

      “We want to explore how digital capabilities can be applied to tangible objects. Our goal is to bring reprogrammable appearance to the physical world,” explains Mueller, director of the HCI Engineering Group based out of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

      Mueller’s team utilizes a combination of smart materials, optics, and computation to advance personal fabrication technologies that would allow end users to alter the design and appearance of the products they own. They tested this concept in a project they dubbed “Photo-Chromeleon.”

      First, a mix of photochromic cyan, magenta, and yellow dies are airbrushed onto an object — in this instance, a 3D sculpture of a chameleon. Using software they developed, the team sketches the exact color pattern they want to achieve on the object itself. An ultraviolet light shines on the object to activate the dyes.

      To actually create the physical pattern on the object, Mueller has developed an optimization algorithm to use alongside a normal office projector outfitted with red, green, and blue LED lights. These lights shine on specific pixels on the object for a given period of time to physically change the makeup of the photochromic pigments.

      “This fancy algorithm tells us exactly how long we have to shine the red, green, and blue light on every single pixel of an object to get the exact pattern we’ve programmed in our software,” says Mueller.

      Giving this freedom to the end user enables limitless possibilities. Mueller’s team has applied this technology to iPhone cases, shoes, and even cars. In the case of shoes, Mueller envisions a shoebox embedded with UV and LED light projectors. Users could put their shoes in the box overnight and the next day have a pair of shoes in a completely new pattern.

      Mueller wants to expand her personal fabrication methods to the clothes we wear. Rather than utilize the light projection technique developed in the PhotoChromeleon project, her team is exploring the possibility of weaving LEDs directly into clothing fibers, allowing people to change their shirt’s appearance as they wear it. These personal fabrication technologies could completely alter consumer habits.

      “It’s very interesting for me to think about how these computational techniques will change product design on a high level,” adds Mueller. “In the future, a consumer could buy a blank iPhone case and update the design on a weekly or daily basis.”

      Computational fluid dynamics and participatory design

      Another team of mechanical engineers, including Sili Deng, the Brit (1961) & Alex (1949) d’Arbeloff Career Development Professor, are developing a different kind of design tool that could have a large impact on individuals in low- and middle-income countries across the world.

      As Deng walked down the hallway of Building 1 on MIT’s campus, a monitor playing a video caught her eye. The video featured work done by mechanical engineers and MIT D-Lab on developing cleaner burning briquettes for cookstoves in Uganda. Deng immediately knew she wanted to get involved.

      “As a combustion scientist, I’ve always wanted to work on such a tangible real-world problem, but the field of combustion tends to focus more heavily on the academic side of things,” explains Deng.

      After reaching out to colleagues in MIT D-Lab, Deng joined a collaborative effort to develop a new cookstove design tool for the 3 billion people across the world who burn solid fuels to cook and heat their homes. These stoves often emit soot and carbon monoxide, leading not only to millions of deaths each year, but also worsening the world’s greenhouse gas emission problem.

      The team is taking a three-pronged approach to developing this solution, using a combination of participatory design, physical modeling, and experimental validation to create a tool that will lead to the production of high-performing, low-cost energy products.

      Deng and her team in the Deng Energy and Nanotechnology Group use physics-based modeling for the combustion and emission process in cookstoves.

      “My team is focused on computational fluid dynamics. We use computational and numerical studies to understand the flow field where the fuel is burned and releases heat,” says Deng.

      These flow mechanics are crucial to understanding how to minimize heat loss and make cookstoves more efficient, as well as learning how dangerous pollutants are formed and released in the process.

      Using computational methods, Deng’s team performs three-dimensional simulations of the complex chemistry and transport coupling at play in the combustion and emission processes. They then use these simulations to build a combustion model for how fuel is burned and a pollution model that predicts carbon monoxide emissions.

      Deng’s models are used by a group led by Daniel Sweeney in MIT D-Lab to test the experimental validation in prototypes of stoves. Finally, Professor Maria Yang uses participatory design methods to integrate user feedback, ensuring the design tool can actually be used by people across the world.

      The end goal for this collaborative team is to not only provide local manufacturers with a prototype they could produce themselves, but to also provide them with a tool that can tweak the design based on local needs and available materials.

      Deng sees wide-ranging applications for the computational fluid dynamics her team is developing.

      “We see an opportunity to use physics-based modeling, augmented with a machine learning approach, to come up with chemical models for practical fuels that help us better understand combustion. Therefore, we can design new methods to minimize carbon emissions,” she adds.

      While Deng is utilizing simulations and machine learning at the molecular level to improve designs, others are taking a more macro approach.

      Designing intelligent systems

      When it comes to intelligent design, Navid Azizan thinks big. He hopes to help create future intelligent systems that are capable of making decisions autonomously by using the enormous amounts of data emerging from the physical world. From smart robots and autonomous vehicles to smart power grids and smart cities, Azizan focuses on the analysis, design, and control of intelligent systems.

      Achieving such massive feats takes a truly interdisciplinary approach that draws upon various fields such as machine learning, dynamical systems, control, optimization, statistics, and network science, among others.

      “Developing intelligent systems is a multifaceted problem, and it really requires a confluence of disciplines,” says Azizan, assistant professor of mechanical engineering with a dual appointment in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS). “To create such systems, we need to go beyond standard approaches to machine learning, such as those commonly used in computer vision, and devise algorithms that can enable safe, efficient, real-time decision-making for physical systems.”

      For robot control to work in the complex dynamic environments that arise in the real world, real-time adaptation is key. If, for example, an autonomous vehicle is going to drive in icy conditions or a drone is operating in windy conditions, they need to be able to adapt to their new environment quickly.

      To address this challenge, Azizan and his collaborators at MIT and Stanford University have developed a new algorithm that combines adaptive control, a powerful methodology from control theory, with meta learning, a new machine learning paradigm.

      “This ‘control-oriented’ learning approach outperforms the existing ‘regression-oriented’ methods, which are mostly focused on just fitting the data, by a wide margin,” says Azizan.

      Another critical aspect of deploying machine learning algorithms in physical systems that Azizan and his team hope to address is safety. Deep neural networks are a crucial part of autonomous systems. They are used for interpreting complex visual inputs and making data-driven predictions of future behavior in real time. However, Azizan urges caution.

      “These deep neural networks are only as good as their training data, and their predictions can often be untrustworthy in scenarios not covered by their training data,” he says. Making decisions based on such untrustworthy predictions could lead to fatal accidents in autonomous vehicles or other safety-critical systems.

      To avoid these potentially catastrophic events, Azizan proposes that it is imperative to equip neural networks with a measure of their uncertainty. When the uncertainty is high, they can then be switched to a “safe policy.”

      In pursuit of this goal, Azizan and his collaborators have developed a new algorithm known as SCOD — Sketching Curvature of Out-of-Distribution Detection. This framework could be embedded within any deep neural network to equip them with a measure of their uncertainty.

      “This algorithm is model-agnostic and can be applied to neural networks used in various kinds of autonomous systems, whether it’s drones, vehicles, or robots,” says Azizan.

      Azizan hopes to continue working on algorithms for even larger-scale systems. He and his team are designing efficient algorithms to better control supply and demand in smart energy grids. According to Azizan, even if we create the most efficient solar panels and batteries, we can never achieve a sustainable grid powered by renewable resources without the right control mechanisms.

      Mechanical engineers like Ahmed, Mueller, Deng, and Azizan serve as the key to realizing the next revolution of computing in design.

      “MechE is in a unique position at the intersection of the computational and physical worlds,” Azizan says. “Mechanical engineers build a bridge between theoretical, algorithmic tools and real, physical world applications.”

      Sophisticated computational tools, coupled with the ground truth mechanical engineers have in the physical world, could unlock limitless possibilities for design engineering, well beyond what could have been imagined in those early days of CAD. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Theoretical breakthrough could boost data storage

      by

      A trio of researchers that includes William Kuszmaul — a computer science PhD student at MIT — has made a discovery that could lead to more efficient data storage and retrieval in computers.

      The team’s findings relate to so-called “linear-probing hash tables,” which were introduced in 1954 and are among the oldest, simplest, and fastest data structures available today. Data structures provide ways of organizing and storing data in computers, with hash tables being one of the most commonly utilized approaches. In a linear-probing hash table, the positions in which information can be stored lie along a linear array.

      Suppose, for instance, that a database is designed to store the Social Security numbers of 10,000 people, Kuszmaul suggests. “We take your Social Security number, x, and we’ll then compute the hash function of x, h(x), which gives you a random number between one and 10,000.” The next step is to take that random number, h(x), go to that position in the array, and put x, the Social Security number, into that spot.

      If there’s already something occupying that spot, Kuszmaul says, “you just move forward to the next free position and put it there. This is where the term ‘linear probing’ comes from, as you keep moving forward linearly until you find an open spot.” In order to later retrieve that Social Security number, x, you just go to the designated spot, h(x), and if it’s not there, you move forward until you either find x or come to a free position and conclude that x is not in your database.

      There’s a somewhat different protocol for deleting an item, such as a Social Security number. If you just left an empty spot in the hash table after deleting the information, that could cause confusion when you later tried to find something else, as the vacant spot might erroneously suggest that the item you’re looking for is nowhere to be found in the database. To avoid that problem, Kuszmaul explains, “you can go to the spot where the element was removed and put a little marker there called a ‘tombstone,’ which indicates there used to be an element here, but it’s gone now.”

      This general procedure has been followed for more than half-a-century. But in all that time, almost everyone using linear-probing hash tables has assumed that if you allow them to get too full, long stretches of occupied spots would run together to form “clusters.” As a result, the time it takes to find a free spot would go up dramatically — quadratically, in fact — taking so long as to be impractical. Consequently, people have been trained to operate hash tables at low capacity — a practice that can exact an economic toll by affecting the amount of hardware a company has to purchase and maintain.

      But this time-honored principle, which has long militated against high load factors, has been totally upended by the work of Kuszmaul and his colleagues, Michael Bender of Stony Brook University and Bradley Kuszmaul of Google. They found that for applications where the number of insertions and deletions stays about the same — and the amount of data added is roughly equal to that removed — linear-probing hash tables can operate at high storage capacities without sacrificing speed.

      In addition, the team has devised a new strategy, called “graveyard hashing,” which involves artificially increasing the number of tombstones placed in an array until they occupy about half the free spots. These tombstones then reserve spaces that can be used for future insertions.

      This approach, which runs contrary to what people have customarily been instructed to do, Kuszmaul says, “can lead to optimal performance in linear-probing hash tables.” Or, as he and his coauthors maintain in their paper, the “well-designed use of tombstones can completely change the … landscape of how linear probing behaves.”

      Kuszmaul wrote up these findings with Bender and Kuszmaul in a paper posted earlier this year that will be presented in February at the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) Symposium in Boulder, Colorado.

      Kuszmaul’s PhD thesis advisor, MIT computer science professor Charles E. Leiserson (who did not participate in this research), agrees with that assessment. “These new and surprising results overturn one of the oldest conventional wisdoms about hash table behavior,” Leiserson says. “The lessons will reverberate for years among theoreticians and practitioners alike.”

      As for translating their results into practice, Kuszmaul notes, “there are many considerations that go into building a hash table. Although we’ve advanced the story considerably from a theoretical standpoint, we’re just starting to explore the experimental side of things.” More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Avoiding shortcut solutions in artificial intelligence

      by

      If your Uber driver takes a shortcut, you might get to your destination faster. But if a machine learning model takes a shortcut, it might fail in unexpected ways.

      In machine learning, a shortcut solution occurs when the model relies on a simple characteristic of a dataset to make a decision, rather than learning the true essence of the data, which can lead to inaccurate predictions. For example, a model might learn to identify images of cows by focusing on the green grass that appears in the photos, rather than the more complex shapes and patterns of the cows.  

      A new study by researchers at MIT explores the problem of shortcuts in a popular machine-learning method and proposes a solution that can prevent shortcuts by forcing the model to use more data in its decision-making.

      By removing the simpler characteristics the model is focusing on, the researchers force it to focus on more complex features of the data that it hadn’t been considering. Then, by asking the model to solve the same task two ways — once using those simpler features, and then also using the complex features it has now learned to identify — they reduce the tendency for shortcut solutions and boost the performance of the model.

      One potential application of this work is to enhance the effectiveness of machine learning models that are used to identify disease in medical images. Shortcut solutions in this context could lead to false diagnoses and have dangerous implications for patients.

      “It is still difficult to tell why deep networks make the decisions that they do, and in particular, which parts of the data these networks choose to focus upon when making a decision. If we can understand how shortcuts work in further detail, we can go even farther to answer some of the fundamental but very practical questions that are really important to people who are trying to deploy these networks,” says Joshua Robinson, a PhD student in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and lead author of the paper.

      Robinson wrote the paper with his advisors, senior author Suvrit Sra, the Esther and Harold E. Edgerton Career Development Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a core member of the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; and Stefanie Jegelka, the X-Consortium Career Development Associate Professor in EECS and a member of CSAIL and IDSS; as well as University of Pittsburgh assistant professor Kayhan Batmanghelich and PhD students Li Sun and Ke Yu. The research will be presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems in December. 

      The long road to understanding shortcuts

      The researchers focused their study on contrastive learning, which is a powerful form of self-supervised machine learning. In self-supervised machine learning, a model is trained using raw data that do not have label descriptions from humans. It can therefore be used successfully for a larger variety of data.

      A self-supervised learning model learns useful representations of data, which are used as inputs for different tasks, like image classification. But if the model takes shortcuts and fails to capture important information, these tasks won’t be able to use that information either.

      For example, if a self-supervised learning model is trained to classify pneumonia in X-rays from a number of hospitals, but it learns to make predictions based on a tag that identifies the hospital the scan came from (because some hospitals have more pneumonia cases than others), the model won’t perform well when it is given data from a new hospital.     

      For contrastive learning models, an encoder algorithm is trained to discriminate between pairs of similar inputs and pairs of dissimilar inputs. This process encodes rich and complex data, like images, in a way that the contrastive learning model can interpret.

      The researchers tested contrastive learning encoders with a series of images and found that, during this training procedure, they also fall prey to shortcut solutions. The encoders tend to focus on the simplest features of an image to decide which pairs of inputs are similar and which are dissimilar. Ideally, the encoder should focus on all the useful characteristics of the data when making a decision, Jegelka says.

      So, the team made it harder to tell the difference between the similar and dissimilar pairs, and found that this changes which features the encoder will look at to make a decision.

      “If you make the task of discriminating between similar and dissimilar items harder and harder, then your system is forced to learn more meaningful information in the data, because without learning that it cannot solve the task,” she says.

      But increasing this difficulty resulted in a tradeoff — the encoder got better at focusing on some features of the data but became worse at focusing on others. It almost seemed to forget the simpler features, Robinson says.

      To avoid this tradeoff, the researchers asked the encoder to discriminate between the pairs the same way it had originally, using the simpler features, and also after the researchers removed the information it had already learned. Solving the task both ways simultaneously caused the encoder to improve across all features.

      Their method, called implicit feature modification, adaptively modifies samples to remove the simpler features the encoder is using to discriminate between the pairs. The technique does not rely on human input, which is important because real-world data sets can have hundreds of different features that could combine in complex ways, Sra explains.

      From cars to COPD

      The researchers ran one test of this method using images of vehicles. They used implicit feature modification to adjust the color, orientation, and vehicle type to make it harder for the encoder to discriminate between similar and dissimilar pairs of images. The encoder improved its accuracy across all three features — texture, shape, and color — simultaneously.

      To see if the method would stand up to more complex data, the researchers also tested it with samples from a medical image database of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Again, the method led to simultaneous improvements across all features they evaluated.

      While this work takes some important steps forward in understanding the causes of shortcut solutions and working to solve them, the researchers say that continuing to refine these methods and applying them to other types of self-supervised learning will be key to future advancements.

      “This ties into some of the biggest questions about deep learning systems, like ‘Why do they fail?’ and ‘Can we know in advance the situations where your model will fail?’ There is still a lot farther to go if you want to understand shortcut learning in its full generality,” Robinson says.

      This research is supported by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s SAP SE Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement (CURE) program. More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      One autonomous taxi, please

      by

      If you don’t get seasick, an autonomous boat might be the right mode of transportation for you. 

      Scientists from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the Senseable City Laboratory, together with Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS Institute) in the Netherlands, have now created the final project in their self-navigating trilogy: a full-scale, fully autonomous robotic boat that’s ready to be deployed along the canals of Amsterdam. 

      “Roboat” has come a long way since the team first started prototyping small vessels in the MIT pool in late 2015. Last year, the team released their half-scale, medium model that was 2 meters long and demonstrated promising navigational prowess. 

      This year, two full-scale Roboats were launched, proving more than just proof-of-concept: these craft can comfortably carry up to five people, collect waste, deliver goods, and provide on-demand infrastructure. 

      The boat looks futuristic — it’s a sleek combination of black and gray with two seats that face each other, with orange block letters on the sides that illustrate the makers’ namesakes. It’s a fully electrical boat with a battery that’s the size of a small chest, enabling up to 10 hours of operation and wireless charging capabilities. 

      Play video

      Autonomous Roboats set sea in the Amsterdam canals and can comfortably carry up to five people, collect waste, deliver goods, and provide on-demand infrastructure.

      “We now have higher precision and robustness in the perception, navigation, and control systems, including new functions, such as close-proximity approach mode for latching capabilities, and improved dynamic positioning, so the boat can navigate real-world waters,” says Daniela Rus, MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and director of CSAIL. “Roboat’s control system is adaptive to the number of people in the boat.” 

      To swiftly navigate the bustling waters of Amsterdam, Roboat needs a meticulous fusion of proper navigation, perception, and control software. 

      Using GPS, the boat autonomously decides on a safe route from A to B, while continuously scanning the environment to  avoid collisions with objects, such as bridges, pillars, and other boats.

      To autonomously determine a free path and avoid crashing into objects, Roboat uses lidar and a number of cameras to enable a 360-degree view. This bundle of sensors is referred to as the “perception kit” and lets Roboat understand its surroundings. When the perception picks up an unseen object, like a canoe, for example, the algorithm flags the item as “unknown.” When the team later looks at the collected data from the day, the object is manually selected and can be tagged as “canoe.” 

      The control algorithms — similar to ones used for self-driving cars — function a little like a coxswain giving orders to rowers, by translating a given path into instructions toward the “thrusters,” which are the propellers that help the boat move.  

      If you think the boat feels slightly futuristic, its latching mechanism is one of its most impressive feats: small cameras on the boat guide it to the docking station, or other boats, when they detect specific QR codes. “The system allows Roboat to connect to other boats, and to the docking station, to form temporary bridges to alleviate traffic, as well as floating stages and squares, which wasn’t possible with the last iteration,” says Carlo Ratti, professor of the practice in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP) and director of the Senseable City Lab. 

      Roboat, by design, is also versatile. The team created a universal “hull” design — that’s the part of the boat that rides both in and on top of the water. While regular boats have unique hulls, designed for specific purposes, Roboat has a universal hull design where the base is the same, but the top decks can be switched out depending on the use case.

      “As Roboat can perform its tasks 24/7, and without a skipper on board, it adds great value for a city. However, for safety reasons it is questionable if reaching level A autonomy is desirable,” says Fabio Duarte, a principal research scientist in DUSP and lead scientist on the project. “Just like a bridge keeper, an onshore operator will monitor Roboat remotely from a control center. One operator can monitor over 50 Roboat units, ensuring smooth operations.”

      The next step for Roboat is to pilot the technology in the public domain. “The historic center of Amsterdam is the perfect place to start, with its capillary network of canals suffering from contemporary challenges, such as mobility and logistics,” says Stephan van Dijk, director of innovation at AMS Institute. 

      Previous iterations of Roboat have been presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. The boats will be unveiled on Oct. 28 in the waters of Amsterdam. 

      Ratti, Rus, Duarte, and Dijk worked on the project alongside Andrew Whittle, MIT’s Edmund K Turner Professor in civil and environmental engineering; Dennis Frenchman, professor at MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning; and Ynse Deinema of AMS Institute. The full team can be found at Roboat’s website. The project is a joint collaboration with AMS Institute. The City of Amsterdam is a project partner. More