Human-computer interaction

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A faster way to teach a robot

      by

      Imagine purchasing a robot to perform household tasks. This robot was built and trained in a factory on a certain set of tasks and has never seen the items in your home. When you ask it to pick up a mug from your kitchen table, it might not recognize your mug (perhaps because this mug is painted with an unusual image, say, of MIT’s mascot, Tim the Beaver). So, the robot fails.

      “Right now, the way we train these robots, when they fail, we don’t really know why. So you would just throw up your hands and say, ‘OK, I guess we have to start over.’ A critical component that is missing from this system is enabling the robot to demonstrate why it is failing so the user can give it feedback,” says Andi Peng, an electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) graduate student at MIT.

      Peng and her collaborators at MIT, New York University, and the University of California at Berkeley created a framework that enables humans to quickly teach a robot what they want it to do, with a minimal amount of effort.

      When a robot fails, the system uses an algorithm to generate counterfactual explanations that describe what needed to change for the robot to succeed. For instance, maybe the robot would have been able to pick up the mug if the mug were a certain color. It shows these counterfactuals to the human and asks for feedback on why the robot failed. Then the system utilizes this feedback and the counterfactual explanations to generate new data it uses to fine-tune the robot.

      Fine-tuning involves tweaking a machine-learning model that has already been trained to perform one task, so it can perform a second, similar task.

      The researchers tested this technique in simulations and found that it could teach a robot more efficiently than other methods. The robots trained with this framework performed better, while the training process consumed less of a human’s time.

      This framework could help robots learn faster in new environments without requiring a user to have technical knowledge. In the long run, this could be a step toward enabling general-purpose robots to efficiently perform daily tasks for the elderly or individuals with disabilities in a variety of settings.

      Peng, the lead author, is joined by co-authors Aviv Netanyahu, an EECS graduate student; Mark Ho, an assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology; Tianmin Shu, an MIT postdoc; Andreea Bobu, a graduate student at UC Berkeley; and senior authors Julie Shah, an MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics and the director of the Interactive Robotics Group in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and Pulkit Agrawal, a professor in CSAIL. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning.

      On-the-job training

      Robots often fail due to distribution shift — the robot is presented with objects and spaces it did not see during training, and it doesn’t understand what to do in this new environment.

      One way to retrain a robot for a specific task is imitation learning. The user could demonstrate the correct task to teach the robot what to do. If a user tries to teach a robot to pick up a mug, but demonstrates with a white mug, the robot could learn that all mugs are white. It may then fail to pick up a red, blue, or “Tim-the-Beaver-brown” mug.

      Training a robot to recognize that a mug is a mug, regardless of its color, could take thousands of demonstrations.

      “I don’t want to have to demonstrate with 30,000 mugs. I want to demonstrate with just one mug. But then I need to teach the robot so it recognizes that it can pick up a mug of any color,” Peng says.

      To accomplish this, the researchers’ system determines what specific object the user cares about (a mug) and what elements aren’t important for the task (perhaps the color of the mug doesn’t matter). It uses this information to generate new, synthetic data by changing these “unimportant” visual concepts. This process is known as data augmentation.

      The framework has three steps. First, it shows the task that caused the robot to fail. Then it collects a demonstration from the user of the desired actions and generates counterfactuals by searching over all features in the space that show what needed to change for the robot to succeed.

      The system shows these counterfactuals to the user and asks for feedback to determine which visual concepts do not impact the desired action. Then it uses this human feedback to generate many new augmented demonstrations.

      In this way, the user could demonstrate picking up one mug, but the system would produce demonstrations showing the desired action with thousands of different mugs by altering the color. It uses these data to fine-tune the robot.

      Creating counterfactual explanations and soliciting feedback from the user are critical for the technique to succeed, Peng says.

      From human reasoning to robot reasoning

      Because their work seeks to put the human in the training loop, the researchers tested their technique with human users. They first conducted a study in which they asked people if counterfactual explanations helped them identify elements that could be changed without affecting the task.

      “It was so clear right off the bat. Humans are so good at this type of counterfactual reasoning. And this counterfactual step is what allows human reasoning to be translated into robot reasoning in a way that makes sense,” she says.

      Then they applied their framework to three simulations where robots were tasked with: navigating to a goal object, picking up a key and unlocking a door, and picking up a desired object then placing it on a tabletop. In each instance, their method enabled the robot to learn faster than with other techniques, while requiring fewer demonstrations from users.

      Moving forward, the researchers hope to test this framework on real robots. They also want to focus on reducing the time it takes the system to create new data using generative machine-learning models.

      “We want robots to do what humans do, and we want them to do it in a semantically meaningful way. Humans tend to operate in this abstract space, where they don’t think about every single property in an image. At the end of the day, this is really about enabling a robot to learn a good, human-like representation at an abstract level,” Peng says.

      This research is supported, in part, by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, Open Philanthropy, an Apple AI/ML Fellowship, Hyundai Motor Corporation, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, and the National Science Foundation Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Day of AI curriculum meets the moment

      by

      MIT Responsible AI for Social Empowerment and Education (RAISE) recently celebrated the second annual Day of AI with two flagship local events. The Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate in Boston hosted a human rights and data policy-focused event that was streamed worldwide. Dearborn STEM Academy in Roxbury, Massachusetts, hosted a student workshop in collaboration with Amazon Future Engineer. With over 8,000 registrations across all 50 U.S. states and 108 countries in 2023, participation in Day of AI has more than doubled since its inaugural year.

      Day of AI is a free curriculum of lessons and hands-on activities designed to teach kids of all ages and backgrounds the basics and responsible use of artificial intelligence, designed by researchers at MIT RAISE. This year, resources were available for educators to run at any time and in any increments they chose. The curriculum included five new modules to address timely topics like ChatGPT in School, Teachable Machines, AI and Social Media, Data Science and Me, and more. A collaboration with the International Society for Technology in Education also introduced modules for early elementary students. Educators across the world shared photos, videos, and stories of their students’ engagement, expressing excitement and even relief over the accessible lessons.

      Professor Cynthia Breazeal, director of RAISE, dean for digital learning at MIT, and head of the MIT Media Lab’s Personal Robots research group, said, “It’s been a year of extraordinary advancements in AI, and with that comes necessary conversations and concerns about who and what this technology is for. With our Day of AI events, we want to celebrate the teachers and students who are putting in the work to make sure that AI is for everyone.”

      Reflecting community values and protecting digital citizens

      Play video

      On May 18, 2023, MIT RAISE hosted a global Day of AI celebration featuring a flagship local event focused on human rights and data policy at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate. Students from the Warren Prescott Middle School and New Mission High School heard from speakers the City of Boston, Liberty Mutual, and MIT to discuss the many benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence education. Video: MIT Open Learning

      MIT President Sally Kornbluth welcomed students from Warren Prescott Middle School and New Mission High School to the Day of AI program at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute. Kornbluth reflected on the exciting potential of AI, along with the ethical considerations society needs to be responsible for.

      “AI has the potential to do all kinds of fantastic things, including driving a car, helping us with the climate crisis, improving health care, and designing apps that we can’t even imagine yet. But what we have to make sure it doesn’t do is cause harm to individuals, to communities, to us — society as a whole,” she said.

      This theme resonated with each of the event speakers, whose jobs spanned the sectors of education, government, and business. Yo Deshpande, technologist for the public realm, and Michael Lawrence Evans, program director of new urban mechanics from the Boston Mayor’s Office, shared how Boston thinks about using AI to improve city life in ways that are “equitable, accessible, and delightful.” Deshpande said, “We have the opportunity to explore not only how AI works, but how using AI can line up with our values, the way we want to be in the world, and the way we want to be in our community.”

      Adam L’Italien, chief innovation officer at Liberty Mutual Insurance (one of Day of AI’s founding sponsors), compared our present moment with AI technologies to the early days of personal computers and internet connection. “Exposure to emerging technologies can accelerate progress in the world and in your own lives,” L’Italien said, while recognizing that the AI development process needs to be inclusive and mitigate biases.

      Human policies for artificial intelligence

      So how does society address these human rights concerns about AI? Marc Aidinoff ’21, former White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief of staff, led a discussion on how government policy can influence the parameters of how technology is developed and used, like the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Aidinoff said, “The work of building the world you want to see is far harder than building the technical AI system … How do you work with other people and create a collective vision for what we want to do?” Warren Prescott Middle School students described how AI could be used to solve problems that humans couldn’t. But they also shared their concerns that AI could affect data privacy, learning deficits, social media addiction, job displacement, and propaganda.

      In a mock U.S. Senate trial activity designed by Daniella DiPaola, PhD student at the MIT Media Lab, the middle schoolers investigated what rights might be undermined by AI in schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and corporations. Meanwhile, New Mission High School students workshopped the ideas behind bill S.2314, the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act, in an activity designed by Raechel Walker, graduate research assistant in the Personal Robots Group, and Matt Taylor, research assistant at the Media Lab. They discussed what level of control could or should be introduced at the parental, educational, and governmental levels to reduce the risks of internet addiction.

      “Alexa, how do I program AI?”

      Play video

      The 2023 Day of AI celebration featured a flagship local event at the Dearborn STEM Academy in Roxbury in collaboration with Amazon Future Engineer. Students participated in a hands-on activity using MIT App Inventor as part of Day of AI’s Alexa lesson. Video: MIT Open Learning

      At Dearborn STEM Academy, Amazon Future Engineer helped students work through the Intro to Voice AI curriculum module in real-time. Students used MIT App Inventor to code basic commands for Alexa. In an interview with WCVB, Principal Darlene Marcano said, “It’s important that we expose our students to as many different experiences as possible. The students that are participating are on track to be future computer scientists and engineers.”

      Breazeal told Dearborn students, “We want you to have an informed voice about how you want AI to be used in society. We want you to feel empowered that you can shape the world. You can make things with AI to help make a better world and a better community.”

      Rohit Prasad ’08, senior vice president and head scientist for Alexa at Amazon, and Victor Reinoso ’97, global director of philanthropic education initiatives at Amazon, also joined the event. “Amazon and MIT share a commitment to helping students discover a world of possibilities through STEM and AI education,” said Reinoso. “There’s a lot of current excitement around the technological revolution with generative AI and large language models, so we’re excited to help students explore careers of the future and navigate the pathways available to them.” To highlight their continued investment in the local community and the school program, Amazon donated a $25,000 Innovation and Early College Pathways Program Grant to the Boston Public School system.

      Day of AI down under

      Not only was the Day of AI program widely adopted across the globe, Australian educators were inspired to adapt their own regionally specific curriculum. An estimated 161,000 AI professionals will be needed in Australia by 2030, according to the National Artificial Intelligence Center in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), an Australian government agency and Day of AI Australia project partner. CSIRO worked with the University of New South Wales to develop supplementary educational resources on AI ethics and machine learning. Day of AI Australia reached 85,000 students at 400-plus secondary schools this year, sparking curiosity in the next generation of AI experts.

      The interest in AI is accelerating as fast as the technology is being developed. Day of AI offers a unique opportunity for K-12 students to shape our world’s digital future and their own.

      “I hope that some of you will decide to be part of this bigger effort to help us figure out the best possible answers to questions that are raised by AI,” Kornbluth told students at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute. “We’re counting on you, the next generation, to learn how AI works and help make sure it’s for everyone.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Exploring new methods for increasing safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles

      by

      When we think of getting on the road in our cars, our first thoughts may not be that fellow drivers are particularly safe or careful — but human drivers are more reliable than one may expect. For each fatal car crash in the United States, motor vehicles log a whopping hundred million miles on the road.

      Human reliability also plays a role in how autonomous vehicles are integrated in the traffic system, especially around safety considerations. Human drivers continue to surpass autonomous vehicles in their ability to make quick decisions and perceive complex environments: Autonomous vehicles are known to struggle with seemingly common tasks, such as taking on- or off-ramps, or turning left in the face of oncoming traffic. Despite these enormous challenges, embracing autonomous vehicles in the future could yield great benefits, like clearing congested highways; enhancing freedom and mobility for non-drivers; and boosting driving efficiency, an important piece in fighting climate change.

      MIT engineer Cathy Wu envisions ways that autonomous vehicles could be deployed with their current shortcomings, without experiencing a dip in safety. “I started thinking more about the bottlenecks. It’s very clear that the main barrier to deployment of autonomous vehicles is safety and reliability,” Wu says.

      One path forward may be to introduce a hybrid system, in which autonomous vehicles handle easier scenarios on their own, like cruising on the highway, while transferring more complicated maneuvers to remote human operators. Wu, who is a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), a Gilbert W. Winslow Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) and a member of the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), likens this approach to air traffic controllers on the ground directing commercial aircraft.

      In a paper published April 12 in IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Wu and co-authors Cameron Hickert and Sirui Li (both graduate students at LIDS) introduced a framework for how remote human supervision could be scaled to make a hybrid system efficient without compromising passenger safety. They noted that if autonomous vehicles were able to coordinate with each other on the road, they could reduce the number of moments in which humans needed to intervene.

      Humans and cars: finding a balance that’s just right

      For the project, Wu, Hickert, and Li sought to tackle a maneuver that autonomous vehicles often struggle to complete. They decided to focus on merging, specifically when vehicles use an on-ramp to enter a highway. In real life, merging cars must accelerate or slow down in order to avoid crashing into cars already on the road. In this scenario, if an autonomous vehicle was about to merge into traffic, remote human supervisors could momentarily take control of the vehicle to ensure a safe merge. In order to evaluate the efficiency of such a system, particularly while guaranteeing safety, the team specified the maximum amount of time each human supervisor would be expected to spend on a single merge. They were interested in understanding whether a small number of remote human supervisors could successfully manage a larger group of autonomous vehicles, and the extent to which this human-to-car ratio could be improved while still safely covering every merge.

      With more autonomous vehicles in use, one might assume a need for more remote supervisors. But in scenarios where autonomous vehicles coordinated with each other, the team found that cars could significantly reduce the number of times humans needed to step in. For example, a coordinating autonomous vehicle already on a highway could adjust its speed to make room for a merging car, eliminating a risky merging situation altogether.

      The team substantiated the potential to safely scale remote supervision in two theorems. First, using a mathematical framework known as queuing theory, the researchers formulated an expression to capture the probability of a given number of supervisors failing to handle all merges pooled together from multiple cars. This way, the researchers were able to assess how many remote supervisors would be needed in order to cover every potential merge conflict, depending on the number of autonomous vehicles in use. The researchers derived a second theorem to quantify the influence of cooperative autonomous vehicles on surrounding traffic for boosting reliability, to assist cars attempting to merge.

      When the team modeled a scenario in which 30 percent of cars on the road were cooperative autonomous vehicles, they estimated that a ratio of one human supervisor to every 47 autonomous vehicles could cover 99.9999 percent of merging cases. But this level of coverage drops below 99 percent, an unacceptable range, in scenarios where autonomous vehicles did not cooperate with each other.

      “If vehicles were to coordinate and basically prevent the need for supervision, that’s actually the best way to improve reliability,” Wu says.

      Cruising toward the future

      The team decided to focus on merging not only because it’s a challenge for autonomous vehicles, but also because it’s a well-defined task associated with a less-daunting scenario: driving on the highway. About half of the total miles traveled in the United States occur on interstates and other freeways. Since highways allow higher speeds than city roads, Wu says, “If you can fully automate highway driving … you give people back about a third of their driving time.”

      If it became feasible for autonomous vehicles to cruise unsupervised for most highway driving, the challenge of safely navigating complex or unexpected moments would remain. For instance, “you [would] need to be able to handle the start and end of the highway driving,” Wu says. You would also need to be able to manage times when passengers zone out or fall asleep, making them unable to quickly take over controls should it be needed. But if remote human supervisors could guide autonomous vehicles at key moments, passengers may never have to touch the wheel. Besides merging, other challenging situations on the highway include changing lanes and overtaking slower cars on the road.

      Although remote supervision and coordinated autonomous vehicles are hypotheticals for high-speed operations, and not currently in use, Wu hopes that thinking about these topics can encourage growth in the field.

      “This gives us some more confidence that the autonomous driving experience can happen,” Wu says. “I think we need to be more creative about what we mean by ‘autonomous vehicles.’ We want to give people back their time — safely. We want the benefits, we don’t strictly want something that drives autonomously.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Study: AI models fail to reproduce human judgements about rule violations

      by

      In an effort to improve fairness or reduce backlogs, machine-learning models are sometimes designed to mimic human decision making, such as deciding whether social media posts violate toxic content policies.

      But researchers from MIT and elsewhere have found that these models often do not replicate human decisions about rule violations. If models are not trained with the right data, they are likely to make different, often harsher judgements than humans would.

      In this case, the “right” data are those that have been labeled by humans who were explicitly asked whether items defy a certain rule. Training involves showing a machine-learning model millions of examples of this “normative data” so it can learn a task.

      But data used to train machine-learning models are typically labeled descriptively — meaning humans are asked to identify factual features, such as, say, the presence of fried food in a photo. If “descriptive data” are used to train models that judge rule violations, such as whether a meal violates a school policy that prohibits fried food, the models tend to over-predict rule violations.

      This drop in accuracy could have serious implications in the real world. For instance, if a descriptive model is used to make decisions about whether an individual is likely to reoffend, the researchers’ findings suggest it may cast stricter judgements than a human would, which could lead to higher bail amounts or longer criminal sentences.

      “I think most artificial intelligence/machine-learning researchers assume that the human judgements in data and labels are biased, but this result is saying something worse. These models are not even reproducing already-biased human judgments because the data they’re being trained on has a flaw: Humans would label the features of images and text differently if they knew those features would be used for a judgment. This has huge ramifications for machine learning systems in human processes,” says Marzyeh Ghassemi, an assistant professor and head of the Healthy ML Group in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

      Ghassemi is senior author of a new paper detailing these findings, which was published today in Science Advances. Joining her on the paper are lead author Aparna Balagopalan, an electrical engineering and computer science graduate student; David Madras, a graduate student at the University of Toronto; David H. Yang, a former graduate student who is now co-founder of ML Estimation; Dylan Hadfield-Menell, an MIT assistant professor; and Gillian K. Hadfield, Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society and professor of law at the University of Toronto.

      Labeling discrepancy

      This study grew out of a different project that explored how a machine-learning model can justify its predictions. As they gathered data for that study, the researchers noticed that humans sometimes give different answers if they are asked to provide descriptive or normative labels about the same data.

      To gather descriptive labels, researchers ask labelers to identify factual features — does this text contain obscene language? To gather normative labels, researchers give labelers a rule and ask if the data violates that rule — does this text violate the platform’s explicit language policy?

      Surprised by this finding, the researchers launched a user study to dig deeper. They gathered four datasets to mimic different policies, such as a dataset of dog images that could be in violation of an apartment’s rule against aggressive breeds. Then they asked groups of participants to provide descriptive or normative labels.

      In each case, the descriptive labelers were asked to indicate whether three factual features were present in the image or text, such as whether the dog appears aggressive. Their responses were then used to craft judgements. (If a user said a photo contained an aggressive dog, then the policy was violated.) The labelers did not know the pet policy. On the other hand, normative labelers were given the policy prohibiting aggressive dogs, and then asked whether it had been violated by each image, and why.

      The researchers found that humans were significantly more likely to label an object as a violation in the descriptive setting. The disparity, which they computed using the absolute difference in labels on average, ranged from 8 percent on a dataset of images used to judge dress code violations to 20 percent for the dog images.

      “While we didn’t explicitly test why this happens, one hypothesis is that maybe how people think about rule violations is different from how they think about descriptive data. Generally, normative decisions are more lenient,” Balagopalan says.

      Yet data are usually gathered with descriptive labels to train a model for a particular machine-learning task. These data are often repurposed later to train different models that perform normative judgements, like rule violations.

      Training troubles

      To study the potential impacts of repurposing descriptive data, the researchers trained two models to judge rule violations using one of their four data settings. They trained one model using descriptive data and the other using normative data, and then compared their performance.

      They found that if descriptive data are used to train a model, it will underperform a model trained to perform the same judgements using normative data. Specifically, the descriptive model is more likely to misclassify inputs by falsely predicting a rule violation. And the descriptive model’s accuracy was even lower when classifying objects that human labelers disagreed about.

      “This shows that the data do really matter. It is important to match the training context to the deployment context if you are training models to detect if a rule has been violated,” Balagopalan says.

      It can be very difficult for users to determine how data have been gathered; this information can be buried in the appendix of a research paper or not revealed by a private company, Ghassemi says.

      Improving dataset transparency is one way this problem could be mitigated. If researchers know how data were gathered, then they know how those data should be used. Another possible strategy is to fine-tune a descriptively trained model on a small amount of normative data. This idea, known as transfer learning, is something the researchers want to explore in future work.

      They also want to conduct a similar study with expert labelers, like doctors or lawyers, to see if it leads to the same label disparity.

      “The way to fix this is to transparently acknowledge that if we want to reproduce human judgment, we must only use data that were collected in that setting. Otherwise, we are going to end up with systems that are going to have extremely harsh moderations, much harsher than what humans would do. Humans would see nuance or make another distinction, whereas these models don’t,” Ghassemi says.

      This research was funded, in part, by the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society, Microsoft Research, the Vector Institute, and a Canada Research Council Chain. 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

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Meet the 2022-23 Accenture Fellows

      by

      Launched in October 2020, the MIT and Accenture Convergence Initiative for Industry and Technology underscores the ways in which industry and technology can collaborate to spur innovation. The five-year initiative aims to achieve its mission through research, education, and fellowships. To that end, Accenture has once again awarded five annual fellowships to MIT graduate students working on research in industry and technology convergence who are underrepresented, including by race, ethnicity, and gender.This year’s Accenture Fellows work across research areas including telemonitoring, human-computer interactions, operations research,  AI-mediated socialization, and chemical transformations. Their research covers a wide array of projects, including designing low-power processing hardware for telehealth applications; applying machine learning to streamline and improve business operations; improving mental health care through artificial intelligence; and using machine learning to understand the environmental and health consequences of complex chemical reactions.As part of the application process, student nominations were invited from each unit within the School of Engineering, as well as from the Institute’s four other schools and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing. Five exceptional students were selected as fellows for the initiative’s third year.Drew Buzzell is a doctoral candidate in electrical engineering and computer science whose research concerns telemonitoring, a fast-growing sphere of telehealth in which information is collected through internet-of-things (IoT) connected devices and transmitted to the cloud. Currently, the high volume of information involved in telemonitoring — and the time and energy costs of processing it — make data analysis difficult. Buzzell’s work is focused on edge computing, a new computing architecture that seeks to address these challenges by managing data closer to the source, in a distributed network of IoT devices. Buzzell earned his BS in physics and engineering science and his MS in engineering science from the Pennsylvania State University.

      Mengying (Cathy) Fang is a master’s student in the MIT School of Architecture and Planning. Her research focuses on augmented reality and virtual reality platforms. Fang is developing novel sensors and machine components that combine computation, materials science, and engineering. Moving forward, she will explore topics including soft robotics techniques that could be integrated with clothes and wearable devices and haptic feedback in order to develop interactions with digital objects. Fang earned a BS in mechanical engineering and human-computer interaction from Carnegie Mellon University.

      Xiaoyue Gong is a doctoral candidate in operations research at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Her research aims to harness the power of machine learning and data science to reduce inefficiencies in the operation of businesses, organizations, and society. With the support of an Accenture Fellowship, Gong seeks to find solutions to operational problems by designing reinforcement learning methods and other machine learning techniques to embedded operational problems. Gong earned a BS in honors mathematics and interactive media arts from New York University.

      Ruby Liu is a doctoral candidate in medical engineering and medical physics. Their research addresses the growing pandemic of loneliness among older adults, which leads to poor health outcomes and presents particularly high risks for historically marginalized people, including members of the LGBTQ+ community and people of color. Liu is designing a network of interconnected AI agents that foster connections between user and agent, offering mental health care while strengthening and facilitating human-human connections. Liu received a BS in biomedical engineering from Johns Hopkins University.

      Joules Provenzano is a doctoral candidate in chemical engineering. Their work integrates machine learning and liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) to improve our understanding of complex chemical reactions in the environment. As an Accenture Fellow, Provenzano will build upon recent advances in machine learning and LC-HRMS, including novel algorithms for processing real, experimental HR-MS data and new approaches in extracting structure-transformation rules and kinetics. Their research could speed the pace of discovery in the chemical sciences and benefits industries including oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture. Provenzano earned a BS in chemical engineering and international and global studies from the Rochester Institute of Technology. More

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Caspar Hare, Georgia Perakis named associate deans of Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing

      by

      Caspar Hare and Georgia Perakis have been appointed the new associate deans of the Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC), a cross-cutting initiative in the MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing. Their new roles will take effect on Sept. 1.

      “Infusing social and ethical aspects of computing in academic research and education is a critical component of the college mission,” says Daniel Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Ellis Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “I look forward to working with Caspar and Georgia on continuing to develop and advance SERC and its reach across MIT. Their complementary backgrounds and their broad connections across MIT will be invaluable to this next chapter of SERC.”

      Caspar Hare

      Hare is a professor of philosophy in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A member of the MIT faculty since 2003, his main interests are in ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. The general theme of his recent work has been to bring ideas about practical rationality and metaphysics to bear on issues in normative ethics and epistemology. He is the author of two books: “On Myself, and Other, Less Important Subjects” (Princeton University Press 2009), about the metaphysics of perspective, and “The Limits of Kindness” (Oxford University Press 2013), about normative ethics.

      Georgia Perakis

      Perakis is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management and professor of operations research, statistics, and operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, where she has been a faculty member since 1998. She investigates the theory and practice of analytics and its role in operations problems and is particularly interested in how to solve complex and practical problems in pricing, revenue management, supply chains, health care, transportation, and energy applications, among other areas. Since 2019, she has been the co-director of the Operations Research Center, an interdepartmental PhD program that jointly reports to MIT Sloan and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, a role in which she will remain. Perakis will also assume an associate dean role at MIT Sloan in recognition of her leadership.

      Hare and Perakis succeed David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics, and Julie Shah, the H.N. Slater Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, who will be stepping down from their roles at the conclusion of their three-year term on Aug. 31.

      “My deepest thanks to Dave and Julie for their tremendous leadership of SERC and contributions to the college as associate deans,” says Huttenlocher.

      SERC impact

      As the inaugural associate deans of SERC, Kaiser and Shah have been responsible for advancing a mission to incorporate humanist, social science, social responsibility, and civic perspectives into MIT’s teaching, research, and implementation of computing. In doing so, they have engaged dozens of faculty members and thousands of students from across MIT during these first three years of the initiative.

      They have brought together people from a broad array of disciplines to collaborate on crafting original materials such as active learning projects, homework assignments, and in-class demonstrations. A collection of these materials was recently published and is now freely available to the world via MIT OpenCourseWare.

      In February 2021, they launched the MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing for undergraduate instruction across a range of classes and fields of study. The specially commissioned and peer-reviewed cases are based on original research and are brief by design. Three issues have been published to date and a fourth will be released later this summer. Kaiser will continue to oversee the successful new series as editor.

      Last year, 60 undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs joined a community of SERC Scholars to help advance SERC efforts in the college. The scholars participate in unique opportunities throughout, such as the summer Experiential Ethics program. A multidisciplinary team of graduate students last winter worked with the instructors and teaching assistants of class 6.036 (Introduction to Machine Learning), MIT’s largest machine learning course, to infuse weekly labs with material covering ethical computing, data and model bias, and fairness in machine learning through SERC.

      Through efforts such as these, SERC has had a substantial impact at MIT and beyond. Over the course of their tenure, Kaiser and Shah have engaged about 80 faculty members, and more than 2,100 students took courses that included new SERC content in the last year alone. SERC’s reach extended well beyond engineering students, with about 500 exposed to SERC content through courses offered in the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the School of Architecture and Planning. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A technique to improve both fairness and accuracy in artificial intelligence

      by

      For workers who use machine-learning models to help them make decisions, knowing when to trust a model’s predictions is not always an easy task, especially since these models are often so complex that their inner workings remain a mystery.

      Users sometimes employ a technique, known as selective regression, in which the model estimates its confidence level for each prediction and will reject predictions when its confidence is too low. Then a human can examine those cases, gather additional information, and make a decision about each one manually.

      But while selective regression has been shown to improve the overall performance of a model, researchers at MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab have discovered that the technique can have the opposite effect for underrepresented groups of people in a dataset. As the model’s confidence increases with selective regression, its chance of making the right prediction also increases, but this does not always happen for all subgroups.

      For instance, a model suggesting loan approvals might make fewer errors on average, but it may actually make more wrong predictions for Black or female applicants. One reason this can occur is due to the fact that the model’s confidence measure is trained using overrepresented groups and may not be accurate for these underrepresented groups.

      Once they had identified this problem, the MIT researchers developed two algorithms that can remedy the issue. Using real-world datasets, they show that the algorithms reduce performance disparities that had affected marginalized subgroups.

      “Ultimately, this is about being more intelligent about which samples you hand off to a human to deal with. Rather than just minimizing some broad error rate for the model, we want to make sure the error rate across groups is taken into account in a smart way,” says senior MIT author Greg Wornell, the Sumitomo Professor in Engineering in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) who leads the Signals, Information, and Algorithms Laboratory in the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) and is a member of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

      Joining Wornell on the paper are co-lead authors Abhin Shah, an EECS graduate student, and Yuheng Bu, a postdoc in RLE; as well as Joshua Ka-Wing Lee SM ’17, ScD ’21 and Subhro Das, Rameswar Panda, and Prasanna Sattigeri, research staff members at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. The paper will be presented this month at the International Conference on Machine Learning.

      To predict or not to predict

      Regression is a technique that estimates the relationship between a dependent variable and independent variables. In machine learning, regression analysis is commonly used for prediction tasks, such as predicting the price of a home given its features (number of bedrooms, square footage, etc.) With selective regression, the machine-learning model can make one of two choices for each input — it can make a prediction or abstain from a prediction if it doesn’t have enough confidence in its decision.

      When the model abstains, it reduces the fraction of samples it is making predictions on, which is known as coverage. By only making predictions on inputs that it is highly confident about, the overall performance of the model should improve. But this can also amplify biases that exist in a dataset, which occur when the model does not have sufficient data from certain subgroups. This can lead to errors or bad predictions for underrepresented individuals.

      The MIT researchers aimed to ensure that, as the overall error rate for the model improves with selective regression, the performance for every subgroup also improves. They call this monotonic selective risk.

      “It was challenging to come up with the right notion of fairness for this particular problem. But by enforcing this criteria, monotonic selective risk, we can make sure the model performance is actually getting better across all subgroups when you reduce the coverage,” says Shah.

      Focus on fairness

      The team developed two neural network algorithms that impose this fairness criteria to solve the problem.

      One algorithm guarantees that the features the model uses to make predictions contain all information about the sensitive attributes in the dataset, such as race and sex, that is relevant to the target variable of interest. Sensitive attributes are features that may not be used for decisions, often due to laws or organizational policies. The second algorithm employs a calibration technique to ensure the model makes the same prediction for an input, regardless of whether any sensitive attributes are added to that input.

      The researchers tested these algorithms by applying them to real-world datasets that could be used in high-stakes decision making. One, an insurance dataset, is used to predict total annual medical expenses charged to patients using demographic statistics; another, a crime dataset, is used to predict the number of violent crimes in communities using socioeconomic information. Both datasets contain sensitive attributes for individuals.

      When they implemented their algorithms on top of a standard machine-learning method for selective regression, they were able to reduce disparities by achieving lower error rates for the minority subgroups in each dataset. Moreover, this was accomplished without significantly impacting the overall error rate.

      “We see that if we don’t impose certain constraints, in cases where the model is really confident, it could actually be making more errors, which could be very costly in some applications, like health care. So if we reverse the trend and make it more intuitive, we will catch a lot of these errors. A major goal of this work is to avoid errors going silently undetected,” Sattigeri says.

      The researchers plan to apply their solutions to other applications, such as predicting house prices, student GPA, or loan interest rate, to see if the algorithms need to be calibrated for those tasks, says Shah. They also want to explore techniques that use less sensitive information during the model training process to avoid privacy issues.

      And they hope to improve the confidence estimates in selective regression to prevent situations where the model’s confidence is low, but its prediction is correct. This could reduce the workload on humans and further streamline the decision-making process, Sattigeri says.

      This research was funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and its member companies Boston Scientific, Samsung, and Wells Fargo, and by the National Science Foundation. More