Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS)

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares45 Views

    Study: When allocating scarce resources with AI, randomization can improve fairness

    by

    Organizations are increasingly utilizing machine-learning models to allocate scarce resources or opportunities. For instance, such models can help companies screen resumes to choose job interview candidates or aid hospitals in ranking kidney transplant patients based on their likelihood of survival.When deploying a model, users typically strive to ensure its predictions are fair by reducing bias. This often involves techniques like adjusting the features a model uses to make decisions or calibrating the scores it generates.However, researchers from MIT and Northeastern University argue that these fairness methods are not sufficient to address structural injustices and inherent uncertainties. In a new paper, they show how randomizing a model’s decisions in a structured way can improve fairness in certain situations.For example, if multiple companies use the same machine-learning model to rank job interview candidates deterministically — without any randomization — then one deserving individual could be the bottom-ranked candidate for every job, perhaps due to how the model weighs answers provided in an online form. Introducing randomization into a model’s decisions could prevent one worthy person or group from always being denied a scarce resource, like a job interview.Through their analysis, the researchers found that randomization can be especially beneficial when a model’s decisions involve uncertainty or when the same group consistently receives negative decisions.They present a framework one could use to introduce a specific amount of randomization into a model’s decisions by allocating resources through a weighted lottery. This method, which an individual can tailor to fit their situation, can improve fairness without hurting the efficiency or accuracy of a model.“Even if you could make fair predictions, should you be deciding these social allocations of scarce resources or opportunities strictly off scores or rankings? As things scale, and we see more and more opportunities being decided by these algorithms, the inherent uncertainties in these scores can be amplified. We show that fairness may require some sort of randomization,” says Shomik Jain, a graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and lead author of the paper.Jain is joined on the paper by Kathleen Creel, assistant professor of philosophy and computer science at Northeastern University; and senior author Ashia Wilson, the Lister Brothers Career Development Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS). The research will be presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning.Considering claimsThis work builds off a previous paper in which the researchers explored harms that can occur when one uses deterministic systems at scale. They found that using a machine-learning model to deterministically allocate resources can amplify inequalities that exist in training data, which can reinforce bias and systemic inequality. “Randomization is a very useful concept in statistics, and to our delight, satisfies the fairness demands coming from both a systemic and individual point of view,” Wilson says.In this paper, they explored the question of when randomization can improve fairness. They framed their analysis around the ideas of philosopher John Broome, who wrote about the value of using lotteries to award scarce resources in a way that honors all claims of individuals.A person’s claim to a scarce resource, like a kidney transplant, can stem from merit, deservingness, or need. For instance, everyone has a right to life, and their claims on a kidney transplant may stem from that right, Wilson explains.“When you acknowledge that people have different claims to these scarce resources, fairness is going to require that we respect all claims of individuals. If we always give someone with a stronger claim the resource, is that fair?” Jain says.That sort of deterministic allocation could cause systemic exclusion or exacerbate patterned inequality, which occurs when receiving one allocation increases an individual’s likelihood of receiving future allocations. In addition, machine-learning models can make mistakes, and a deterministic approach could cause the same mistake to be repeated.Randomization can overcome these problems, but that doesn’t mean all decisions a model makes should be randomized equally.Structured randomizationThe researchers use a weighted lottery to adjust the level of randomization based on the amount of uncertainty involved in the model’s decision-making. A decision that is less certain should incorporate more randomization.“In kidney allocation, usually the planning is around projected lifespan, and that is deeply uncertain. If two patients are only five years apart, it becomes a lot harder to measure. We want to leverage that level of uncertainty to tailor the randomization,” Wilson says.The researchers used statistical uncertainty quantification methods to determine how much randomization is needed in different situations. They show that calibrated randomization can lead to fairer outcomes for individuals without significantly affecting the utility, or effectiveness, of the model.“There is a balance to be had between overall utility and respecting the rights of the individuals who are receiving a scarce resource, but oftentimes the tradeoff is relatively small,” says Wilson.However, the researchers emphasize there are situations where randomizing decisions would not improve fairness and could harm individuals, such as in criminal justice contexts.But there could be other areas where randomization can improve fairness, such as college admissions, and the researchers plan to study other use cases in future work. They also want to explore how randomization can affect other factors, such as competition or prices, and how it could be used to improve the robustness of machine-learning models.“We are hoping our paper is a first move toward illustrating that there might be a benefit to randomization. We are offering randomization as a tool. How much you are going to want to do it is going to be up to all the stakeholders in the allocation to decide. And, of course, how they decide is another research question all together,” says Wilson. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares48 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      AI model identifies certain breast tumor stages likely to progress to invasive cancer

      by

      Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a type of preinvasive tumor that sometimes progresses to a highly deadly form of breast cancer. It accounts for about 25 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses.Because it is difficult for clinicians to determine the type and stage of DCIS, patients with DCIS are often overtreated. To address this, an interdisciplinary team of researchers from MIT and ETH Zurich developed an AI model that can identify the different stages of DCIS from a cheap and easy-to-obtain breast tissue image. Their model shows that both the state and arrangement of cells in a tissue sample are important for determining the stage of DCIS.Because such tissue images are so easy to obtain, the researchers were able to build one of the largest datasets of its kind, which they used to train and test their model. When they compared its predictions to conclusions of a pathologist, they found clear agreement in many instances.In the future, the model could be used as a tool to help clinicians streamline the diagnosis of simpler cases without the need for labor-intensive tests, giving them more time to evaluate cases where it is less clear if DCIS will become invasive.“We took the first step in understanding that we should be looking at the spatial organization of cells when diagnosing DCIS, and now we have developed a technique that is scalable. From here, we really need a prospective study. Working with a hospital and getting this all the way to the clinic will be an important step forward,” says Caroline Uhler, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), who is also director of the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and a researcher at MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).Uhler, co-corresponding author of a paper on this research, is joined by lead author Xinyi Zhang, a graduate student in EECS and the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center; co-corresponding author GV Shivashankar, professor of mechogenomics at ETH Zurich jointly with the Paul Scherrer Institute; and others at MIT, ETH Zurich, and the University of Palermo in Italy. The open-access research was published July 20 in Nature Communications.Combining imaging with AI   Between 30 and 50 percent of patients with DCIS develop a highly invasive stage of cancer, but researchers don’t know the biomarkers that could tell a clinician which tumors will progress.Researchers can use techniques like multiplexed staining or single-cell RNA sequencing to determine the stage of DCIS in tissue samples. However, these tests are too expensive to be performed widely, Shivashankar explains.In previous work, these researchers showed that a cheap imagining technique known as chromatin staining could be as informative as the much costlier single-cell RNA sequencing.For this research, they hypothesized that combining this single stain with a carefully designed machine-learning model could provide the same information about cancer stage as costlier techniques.First, they created a dataset containing 560 tissue sample images from 122 patients at three different stages of disease. They used this dataset to train an AI model that learns a representation of the state of each cell in a tissue sample image, which it uses to infer the stage of a patient’s cancer.However, not every cell is indicative of cancer, so the researchers had to aggregate them in a meaningful way.They designed the model to create clusters of cells in similar states, identifying eight states that are important markers of DCIS. Some cell states are more indicative of invasive cancer than others. The model determines the proportion of cells in each state in a tissue sample.Organization matters“But in cancer, the organization of cells also changes. We found that just having the proportions of cells in every state is not enough. You also need to understand how the cells are organized,” says Shivashankar.With this insight, they designed the model to consider proportion and arrangement of cell states, which significantly boosted its accuracy.“The interesting thing for us was seeing how much spatial organization matters. Previous studies had shown that cells which are close to the breast duct are important. But it is also important to consider which cells are close to which other cells,” says Zhang.When they compared the results of their model with samples evaluated by a pathologist, it had clear agreement in many instances. In cases that were not as clear-cut, the model could provide information about features in a tissue sample, like the organization of cells, that a pathologist could use in decision-making.This versatile model could also be adapted for use in other types of cancer, or even neurodegenerative conditions, which is one area the researchers are also currently exploring.“We have shown that, with the right AI techniques, this simple stain can be very powerful. There is still much more research to do, but we need to take the organization of cells into account in more of our studies,” Uhler says.This research was funded, in part, by the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute, ETH Zurich, the Paul Scherrer Institute, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the MIT Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning and Health, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, and a Simons Investigator Award. More

    • 138 Shares64 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      How to assess a general-purpose AI model’s reliability before it’s deployed

      by

      Foundation models are massive deep-learning models that have been pretrained on an enormous amount of general-purpose, unlabeled data. They can be applied to a variety of tasks, like generating images or answering customer questions.But these models, which serve as the backbone for powerful artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and DALL-E, can offer up incorrect or misleading information. In a safety-critical situation, such as a pedestrian approaching a self-driving car, these mistakes could have serious consequences.To help prevent such mistakes, researchers from MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab developed a technique to estimate the reliability of foundation models before they are deployed to a specific task.They do this by considering a set of foundation models that are slightly different from one another. Then they use their algorithm to assess the consistency of the representations each model learns about the same test data point. If the representations are consistent, it means the model is reliable.When they compared their technique to state-of-the-art baseline methods, it was better at capturing the reliability of foundation models on a variety of downstream classification tasks.Someone could use this technique to decide if a model should be applied in a certain setting, without the need to test it on a real-world dataset. This could be especially useful when datasets may not be accessible due to privacy concerns, like in health care settings. In addition, the technique could be used to rank models based on reliability scores, enabling a user to select the best one for their task.“All models can be wrong, but models that know when they are wrong are more useful. The problem of quantifying uncertainty or reliability is more challenging for these foundation models because their abstract representations are difficult to compare. Our method allows one to quantify how reliable a representation model is for any given input data,” says senior author Navid Azizan, the Esther and Harold E. Edgerton Assistant Professor in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), and a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).He is joined on a paper about the work by lead author Young-Jin Park, a LIDS graduate student; Hao Wang, a research scientist at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab; and Shervin Ardeshir, a senior research scientist at Netflix. The paper will be presented at the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.Measuring consensusTraditional machine-learning models are trained to perform a specific task. These models typically make a concrete prediction based on an input. For instance, the model might tell you whether a certain image contains a cat or a dog. In this case, assessing reliability could be a matter of looking at the final prediction to see if the model is right.But foundation models are different. The model is pretrained using general data, in a setting where its creators don’t know all downstream tasks it will be applied to. Users adapt it to their specific tasks after it has already been trained.Unlike traditional machine-learning models, foundation models don’t give concrete outputs like “cat” or “dog” labels. Instead, they generate an abstract representation based on an input data point.To assess the reliability of a foundation model, the researchers used an ensemble approach by training several models which share many properties but are slightly different from one another.“Our idea is like measuring the consensus. If all those foundation models are giving consistent representations for any data in our dataset, then we can say this model is reliable,” Park says.But they ran into a problem: How could they compare abstract representations?“These models just output a vector, comprised of some numbers, so we can’t compare them easily,” he adds.They solved this problem using an idea called neighborhood consistency.For their approach, the researchers prepare a set of reliable reference points to test on the ensemble of models. Then, for each model, they investigate the reference points located near that model’s representation of the test point.By looking at the consistency of neighboring points, they can estimate the reliability of the models.Aligning the representationsFoundation models map data points to what is known as a representation space. One way to think about this space is as a sphere. Each model maps similar data points to the same part of its sphere, so images of cats go in one place and images of dogs go in another.But each model would map animals differently in its own sphere, so while cats may be grouped near the South Pole of one sphere, another model could map cats somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere.The researchers use the neighboring points like anchors to align those spheres so they can make the representations comparable. If a data point’s neighbors are consistent across multiple representations, then one should be confident about the reliability of the model’s output for that point.When they tested this approach on a wide range of classification tasks, they found that it was much more consistent than baselines. Plus, it wasn’t tripped up by challenging test points that caused other methods to fail.Moreover, their approach can be used to assess reliability for any input data, so one could evaluate how well a model works for a particular type of individual, such as a patient with certain characteristics.“Even if the models all have average performance overall, from an individual point of view, you’d prefer the one that works best for that individual,” Wang says.However, one limitation comes from the fact that they must train an ensemble of foundation models, which is computationally expensive. In the future, they plan to find more efficient ways to build multiple models, perhaps by using small perturbations of a single model.“With the current trend of using foundational models for their embeddings to support various downstream tasks — from fine-tuning to retrieval augmented generation — the topic of quantifying uncertainty at the representation level is increasingly important, but challenging, as embeddings on their own have no grounding. What matters instead is how embeddings of different inputs are related to one another, an idea that this work neatly captures through the proposed neighborhood consistency score,” says Marco Pavone, an associate professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University, who was not involved with this work. “This is a promising step towards high quality uncertainty quantifications for embedding models, and I’m excited to see future extensions which can operate without requiring model-ensembling to really enable this approach to scale to foundation-size models.”This work is funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, MathWorks, and Amazon. More

    • 63 Shares95 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Machine learning and the microscope

      by

      With recent advances in imaging, genomics and other technologies, the life sciences are awash in data. If a biologist is studying cells taken from the brain tissue of Alzheimer’s patients, for example, there could be any number of characteristics they want to investigate — a cell’s type, the genes it’s expressing, its location within the tissue, or more. However, while cells can now be probed experimentally using different kinds of measurements simultaneously, when it comes to analyzing the data, scientists usually can only work with one type of measurement at a time.Working with “multimodal” data, as it’s called, requires new computational tools, which is where Xinyi Zhang comes in.The fourth-year MIT PhD student is bridging machine learning and biology to understand fundamental biological principles, especially in areas where conventional methods have hit limitations. Working in the lab of MIT Professor Caroline Uhler in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, and collaborating with researchers at the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute and elsewhere, Zhang has led multiple efforts to build computational frameworks and principles for understanding the regulatory mechanisms of cells.“All of these are small steps toward the end goal of trying to answer how cells work, how tissues and organs work, why they have disease, and why they can sometimes be cured and sometimes not,” Zhang says.The activities Zhang pursues in her down time are no less ambitious. The list of hobbies she has taken up at the Institute include sailing, skiing, ice skating, rock climbing, performing with MIT’s Concert Choir, and flying single-engine planes. (She earned her pilot’s license in November 2022.)“I guess I like to go to places I’ve never been and do things I haven’t done before,” she says with signature understatement.Uhler, her advisor, says that Zhang’s quiet humility leads to a surprise “in every conversation.”“Every time, you learn something like, ‘Okay, so now she’s learning to fly,’” Uhler says. “It’s just amazing. Anything she does, she does for the right reasons. She wants to be good at the things she cares about, which I think is really exciting.”Zhang first became interested in biology as a high school student in Hangzhou, China. She liked that her teachers couldn’t answer her questions in biology class, which led her to see it as the “most interesting” topic to study.Her interest in biology eventually turned into an interest in bioengineering. After her parents, who were middle school teachers, suggested studying in the United States, she majored in the latter alongside electrical engineering and computer science as an undergraduate at the University of California at Berkeley.Zhang was ready to dive straight into MIT’s EECS PhD program after graduating in 2020, but the Covid-19 pandemic delayed her first year. Despite that, in December 2022, she, Uhler, and two other co-authors published a paper in Nature Communications.The groundwork for the paper was laid by Xiao Wang, one of the co-authors. She had previously done work with the Broad Institute in developing a form of spatial cell analysis that combined multiple forms of cell imaging and gene expression for the same cell while also mapping out the cell’s place in the tissue sample it came from — something that had never been done before.This innovation had many potential applications, including enabling new ways of tracking the progression of various diseases, but there was no way to analyze all the multimodal data the method produced. In came Zhang, who became interested in designing a computational method that could.The team focused on chromatin staining as their imaging method of choice, which is relatively cheap but still reveals a great deal of information about cells. The next step was integrating the spatial analysis techniques developed by Wang, and to do that, Zhang began designing an autoencoder.Autoencoders are a type of neural network that typically encodes and shrinks large amounts of high-dimensional data, then expand the transformed data back to its original size. In this case, Zhang’s autoencoder did the reverse, taking the input data and making it higher-dimensional. This allowed them to combine data from different animals and remove technical variations that were not due to meaningful biological differences.In the paper, they used this technology, abbreviated as STACI, to identify how cells and tissues reveal the progression of Alzheimer’s disease when observed under a number of spatial and imaging techniques. The model can also be used to analyze any number of diseases, Zhang says.Given unlimited time and resources, her dream would be to build a fully complete model of human life. Unfortunately, both time and resources are limited. Her ambition isn’t, however, and she says she wants to keep applying her skills to solve the “most challenging questions that we don’t have the tools to answer.”She’s currently working on wrapping up a couple of projects, one focused on studying neurodegeneration by analyzing frontal cortex imaging and another on predicting protein images from protein sequences and chromatin imaging.“There are still many unanswered questions,” she says. “I want to pick questions that are biologically meaningful, that help us understand things we didn’t know before.” More

    • 75 Shares124 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      When to trust an AI model

      by

      Because machine-learning models can give false predictions, researchers often equip them with the ability to tell a user how confident they are about a certain decision. This is especially important in high-stake settings, such as when models are used to help identify disease in medical images or filter job applications.But a model’s uncertainty quantifications are only useful if they are accurate. If a model says it is 49 percent confident that a medical image shows a pleural effusion, then 49 percent of the time, the model should be right.MIT researchers have introduced a new approach that can improve uncertainty estimates in machine-learning models. Their method not only generates more accurate uncertainty estimates than other techniques, but does so more efficiently.In addition, because the technique is scalable, it can be applied to huge deep-learning models that are increasingly being deployed in health care and other safety-critical situations.This technique could give end users, many of whom lack machine-learning expertise, better information they can use to determine whether to trust a model’s predictions or if the model should be deployed for a particular task.“It is easy to see these models perform really well in scenarios where they are very good, and then assume they will be just as good in other scenarios. This makes it especially important to push this kind of work that seeks to better calibrate the uncertainty of these models to make sure they align with human notions of uncertainty,” says lead author Nathan Ng, a graduate student at the University of Toronto who is a visiting student at MIT.Ng wrote the paper with Roger Grosse, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Toronto; and senior author Marzyeh Ghassemi, an associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a member of the Institute of Medical Engineering Sciences and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning.Quantifying uncertaintyUncertainty quantification methods often require complex statistical calculations that don’t scale well to machine-learning models with millions of parameters. These methods also require users to make assumptions about the model and data used to train it.The MIT researchers took a different approach. They use what is known as the minimum description length principle (MDL), which does not require the assumptions that can hamper the accuracy of other methods. MDL is used to better quantify and calibrate uncertainty for test points the model has been asked to label.The technique the researchers developed, known as IF-COMP, makes MDL fast enough to use with the kinds of large deep-learning models deployed in many real-world settings.MDL involves considering all possible labels a model could give a test point. If there are many alternative labels for this point that fit well, its confidence in the label it chose should decrease accordingly.“One way to understand how confident a model is would be to tell it some counterfactual information and see how likely it is to believe you,” Ng says.For example, consider a model that says a medical image shows a pleural effusion. If the researchers tell the model this image shows an edema, and it is willing to update its belief, then the model should be less confident in its original decision.With MDL, if a model is confident when it labels a datapoint, it should use a very short code to describe that point. If it is uncertain about its decision because the point could have many other labels, it uses a longer code to capture these possibilities.The amount of code used to label a datapoint is known as stochastic data complexity. If the researchers ask the model how willing it is to update its belief about a datapoint given contrary evidence, the stochastic data complexity should decrease if the model is confident.But testing each datapoint using MDL would require an enormous amount of computation.Speeding up the processWith IF-COMP, the researchers developed an approximation technique that can accurately estimate stochastic data complexity using a special function, known as an influence function. They also employed a statistical technique called temperature-scaling, which improves the calibration of the model’s outputs. This combination of influence functions and temperature-scaling enables high-quality approximations of the stochastic data complexity.In the end, IF-COMP can efficiently produce well-calibrated uncertainty quantifications that reflect a model’s true confidence. The technique can also determine whether the model has mislabeled certain data points or reveal which data points are outliers.The researchers tested their system on these three tasks and found that it was faster and more accurate than other methods.“It is really important to have some certainty that a model is well-calibrated, and there is a growing need to detect when a specific prediction doesn’t look quite right. Auditing tools are becoming more necessary in machine-learning problems as we use large amounts of unexamined data to make models that will be applied to human-facing problems,” Ghassemi says.IF-COMP is model-agnostic, so it can provide accurate uncertainty quantifications for many types of machine-learning models. This could enable it to be deployed in a wider range of real-world settings, ultimately helping more practitioners make better decisions.“People need to understand that these systems are very fallible and can make things up as they go. A model may look like it is highly confident, but there are a ton of different things it is willing to believe given evidence to the contrary,” Ng says.In the future, the researchers are interested in applying their approach to large language models and studying other potential use cases for the minimum description length principle.  More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Using generative AI to improve software testing

      by

      Generative AI is getting plenty of attention for its ability to create text and images. But those media represent only a fraction of the data that proliferate in our society today. Data are generated every time a patient goes through a medical system, a storm impacts a flight, or a person interacts with a software application.

      Using generative AI to create realistic synthetic data around those scenarios can help organizations more effectively treat patients, reroute planes, or improve software platforms — especially in scenarios where real-world data are limited or sensitive.

      For the last three years, the MIT spinout DataCebo has offered a generative software system called the Synthetic Data Vault to help organizations create synthetic data to do things like test software applications and train machine learning models.

      The Synthetic Data Vault, or SDV, has been downloaded more than 1 million times, with more than 10,000 data scientists using the open-source library for generating synthetic tabular data. The founders — Principal Research Scientist Kalyan Veeramachaneni and alumna Neha Patki ’15, SM ’16 — believe the company’s success is due to SDV’s ability to revolutionize software testing.

      SDV goes viral

      In 2016, Veeramachaneni’s group in the Data to AI Lab unveiled a suite of open-source generative AI tools to help organizations create synthetic data that matched the statistical properties of real data.

      Companies can use synthetic data instead of sensitive information in programs while still preserving the statistical relationships between datapoints. Companies can also use synthetic data to run new software through simulations to see how it performs before releasing it to the public.

      Veeramachaneni’s group came across the problem because it was working with companies that wanted to share their data for research.

      “MIT helps you see all these different use cases,” Patki explains. “You work with finance companies and health care companies, and all those projects are useful to formulate solutions across industries.”

      In 2020, the researchers founded DataCebo to build more SDV features for larger organizations. Since then, the use cases have been as impressive as they’ve been varied.

      With DataCebo’s new flight simulator, for instance, airlines can plan for rare weather events in a way that would be impossible using only historic data. In another application, SDV users synthesized medical records to predict health outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis. A team from Norway recently used SDV to create synthetic student data to evaluate whether various admissions policies were meritocratic and free from bias.

      In 2021, the data science platform Kaggle hosted a competition for data scientists that used SDV to create synthetic data sets to avoid using proprietary data. Roughly 30,000 data scientists participated, building solutions and predicting outcomes based on the company’s realistic data.

      And as DataCebo has grown, it’s stayed true to its MIT roots: All of the company’s current employees are MIT alumni.

      Supercharging software testing

      Although their open-source tools are being used for a variety of use cases, the company is focused on growing its traction in software testing.

      “You need data to test these software applications,” Veeramachaneni says. “Traditionally, developers manually write scripts to create synthetic data. With generative models, created using SDV, you can learn from a sample of data collected and then sample a large volume of synthetic data (which has the same properties as real data), or create specific scenarios and edge cases, and use the data to test your application.”

      For example, if a bank wanted to test a program designed to reject transfers from accounts with no money in them, it would have to simulate many accounts simultaneously transacting. Doing that with data created manually would take a lot of time. With DataCebo’s generative models, customers can create any edge case they want to test.

      “It’s common for industries to have data that is sensitive in some capacity,” Patki says. “Often when you’re in a domain with sensitive data you’re dealing with regulations, and even if there aren’t legal regulations, it’s in companies’ best interest to be diligent about who gets access to what at which time. So, synthetic data is always better from a privacy perspective.”

      Scaling synthetic data

      Veeramachaneni believes DataCebo is advancing the field of what it calls synthetic enterprise data, or data generated from user behavior on large companies’ software applications.

      “Enterprise data of this kind is complex, and there is no universal availability of it, unlike language data,” Veeramachaneni says. “When folks use our publicly available software and report back if works on a certain pattern, we learn a lot of these unique patterns, and it allows us to improve our algorithms. From one perspective, we are building a corpus of these complex patterns, which for language and images is readily available. “

      DataCebo also recently released features to improve SDV’s usefulness, including tools to assess the “realism” of the generated data, called the SDMetrics library as well as a way to compare models’ performances called SDGym.

      “It’s about ensuring organizations trust this new data,” Veeramachaneni says. “[Our tools offer] programmable synthetic data, which means we allow enterprises to insert their specific insight and intuition to build more transparent models.”

      As companies in every industry rush to adopt AI and other data science tools, DataCebo is ultimately helping them do so in a way that is more transparent and responsible.

      “In the next few years, synthetic data from generative models will transform all data work,” Veeramachaneni says. “We believe 90 percent of enterprise operations can be done with synthetic data.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Dealing with the limitations of our noisy world

      by

      Tamara Broderick first set foot on MIT’s campus when she was a high school student, as a participant in the inaugural Women’s Technology Program. The monthlong summer academic experience gives young women a hands-on introduction to engineering and computer science.

      What is the probability that she would return to MIT years later, this time as a faculty member?

      That’s a question Broderick could probably answer quantitatively using Bayesian inference, a statistical approach to probability that tries to quantify uncertainty by continuously updating one’s assumptions as new data are obtained.

      In her lab at MIT, the newly tenured associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) uses Bayesian inference to quantify uncertainty and measure the robustness of data analysis techniques.

      “I’ve always been really interested in understanding not just ‘What do we know from data analysis,’ but ‘How well do we know it?’” says Broderick, who is also a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society. “The reality is that we live in a noisy world, and we can’t always get exactly the data that we want. How do we learn from data but at the same time recognize that there are limitations and deal appropriately with them?”

      Broadly, her focus is on helping people understand the confines of the statistical tools available to them and, sometimes, working with them to craft better tools for a particular situation.

      For instance, her group recently collaborated with oceanographers to develop a machine-learning model that can make more accurate predictions about ocean currents. In another project, she and others worked with degenerative disease specialists on a tool that helps severely motor-impaired individuals utilize a computer’s graphical user interface by manipulating a single switch.

      A common thread woven through her work is an emphasis on collaboration.

      “Working in data analysis, you get to hang out in everybody’s backyard, so to speak. You really can’t get bored because you can always be learning about some other field and thinking about how we can apply machine learning there,” she says.

      Hanging out in many academic “backyards” is especially appealing to Broderick, who struggled even from a young age to narrow down her interests.

      A math mindset

      Growing up in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, Broderick had an interest in math for as long as she can remember. She recalls being fascinated by the idea of what would happen if you kept adding a number to itself, starting with 1+1=2 and then 2+2=4.

      “I was maybe 5 years old, so I didn’t know what ‘powers of two’ were or anything like that. I was just really into math,” she says.

      Her father recognized her interest in the subject and enrolled her in a Johns Hopkins program called the Center for Talented Youth, which gave Broderick the opportunity to take three-week summer classes on a range of subjects, from astronomy to number theory to computer science.

      Later, in high school, she conducted astrophysics research with a postdoc at Case Western University. In the summer of 2002, she spent four weeks at MIT as a member of the first class of the Women’s Technology Program.

      She especially enjoyed the freedom offered by the program, and its focus on using intuition and ingenuity to achieve high-level goals. For instance, the cohort was tasked with building a device with LEGOs that they could use to biopsy a grape suspended in Jell-O.

      The program showed her how much creativity is involved in engineering and computer science, and piqued her interest in pursuing an academic career.

      “But when I got into college at Princeton, I could not decide — math, physics, computer science — they all seemed super-cool. I wanted to do all of it,” she says.

      She settled on pursuing an undergraduate math degree but took all the physics and computer science courses she could cram into her schedule.

      Digging into data analysis

      After receiving a Marshall Scholarship, Broderick spent two years at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, earning a master of advanced study in mathematics and a master of philosophy in physics.

      In the UK, she took a number of statistics and data analysis classes, including her first class on Bayesian data analysis in the field of machine learning.

      It was a transformative experience, she recalls.

      “During my time in the U.K., I realized that I really like solving real-world problems that matter to people, and Bayesian inference was being used in some of the most important problems out there,” she says.

      Back in the U.S., Broderick headed to the University of California at Berkeley, where she joined the lab of Professor Michael I. Jordan as a grad student. She earned a PhD in statistics with a focus on Bayesian data analysis. 

      She decided to pursue a career in academia and was drawn to MIT by the collaborative nature of the EECS department and by how passionate and friendly her would-be colleagues were.

      Her first impressions panned out, and Broderick says she has found a community at MIT that helps her be creative and explore hard, impactful problems with wide-ranging applications.

      “I’ve been lucky to work with a really amazing set of students and postdocs in my lab — brilliant and hard-working people whose hearts are in the right place,” she says.

      One of her team’s recent projects involves a collaboration with an economist who studies the use of microcredit, or the lending of small amounts of money at very low interest rates, in impoverished areas.

      The goal of microcredit programs is to raise people out of poverty. Economists run randomized control trials of villages in a region that receive or don’t receive microcredit. They want to generalize the study results, predicting the expected outcome if one applies microcredit to other villages outside of their study.

      But Broderick and her collaborators have found that results of some microcredit studies can be very brittle. Removing one or a few data points from the dataset can completely change the results. One issue is that researchers often use empirical averages, where a few very high or low data points can skew the results.

      Using machine learning, she and her collaborators developed a method that can determine how many data points must be dropped to change the substantive conclusion of the study. With their tool, a scientist can see how brittle the results are.

      “Sometimes dropping a very small fraction of data can change the major results of a data analysis, and then we might worry how far those conclusions generalize to new scenarios. Are there ways we can flag that for people? That is what we are getting at with this work,” she explains.

      At the same time, she is continuing to collaborate with researchers in a range of fields, such as genetics, to understand the pros and cons of different machine-learning techniques and other data analysis tools.

      Happy trails

      Exploration is what drives Broderick as a researcher, and it also fuels one of her passions outside the lab. She and her husband enjoy collecting patches they earn by hiking all the trails in a park or trail system.

      “I think my hobby really combines my interests of being outdoors and spreadsheets,” she says. “With these hiking patches, you have to explore everything and then you see areas you wouldn’t normally see. It is adventurous, in that way.”

      They’ve discovered some amazing hikes they would never have known about, but also embarked on more than a few “total disaster hikes,” she says. But each hike, whether a hidden gem or an overgrown mess, offers its own rewards.

      And just like in her research, curiosity, open-mindedness, and a passion for problem-solving have never led her astray. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      New AI model could streamline operations in a robotic warehouse

      by

      Hundreds of robots zip back and forth across the floor of a colossal robotic warehouse, grabbing items and delivering them to human workers for packing and shipping. Such warehouses are increasingly becoming part of the supply chain in many industries, from e-commerce to automotive production.

      However, getting 800 robots to and from their destinations efficiently while keeping them from crashing into each other is no easy task. It is such a complex problem that even the best path-finding algorithms struggle to keep up with the breakneck pace of e-commerce or manufacturing. 

      In a sense, these robots are like cars trying to navigate a crowded city center. So, a group of MIT researchers who use AI to mitigate traffic congestion applied ideas from that domain to tackle this problem.

      They built a deep-learning model that encodes important information about the warehouse, including the robots, planned paths, tasks, and obstacles, and uses it to predict the best areas of the warehouse to decongest to improve overall efficiency.

      Their technique divides the warehouse robots into groups, so these smaller groups of robots can be decongested faster with traditional algorithms used to coordinate robots. In the end, their method decongests the robots nearly four times faster than a strong random search method.

      In addition to streamlining warehouse operations, this deep learning approach could be used in other complex planning tasks, like computer chip design or pipe routing in large buildings.

      “We devised a new neural network architecture that is actually suitable for real-time operations at the scale and complexity of these warehouses. It can encode hundreds of robots in terms of their trajectories, origins, destinations, and relationships with other robots, and it can do this in an efficient manner that reuses computation across groups of robots,” says Cathy Wu, the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Assistant Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE), and a member of a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS).

      Wu, senior author of a paper on this technique, is joined by lead author Zhongxia Yan, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science. The work will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

      Robotic Tetris

      From a bird’s eye view, the floor of a robotic e-commerce warehouse looks a bit like a fast-paced game of “Tetris.”

      When a customer order comes in, a robot travels to an area of the warehouse, grabs the shelf that holds the requested item, and delivers it to a human operator who picks and packs the item. Hundreds of robots do this simultaneously, and if two robots’ paths conflict as they cross the massive warehouse, they might crash.

      Traditional search-based algorithms avoid potential crashes by keeping one robot on its course and replanning a trajectory for the other. But with so many robots and potential collisions, the problem quickly grows exponentially.

      “Because the warehouse is operating online, the robots are replanned about every 100 milliseconds. That means that every second, a robot is replanned 10 times. So, these operations need to be very fast,” Wu says.

      Because time is so critical during replanning, the MIT researchers use machine learning to focus the replanning on the most actionable areas of congestion — where there exists the most potential to reduce the total travel time of robots.

      Wu and Yan built a neural network architecture that considers smaller groups of robots at the same time. For instance, in a warehouse with 800 robots, the network might cut the warehouse floor into smaller groups that contain 40 robots each.

      Then, it predicts which group has the most potential to improve the overall solution if a search-based solver were used to coordinate trajectories of robots in that group.

      An iterative process, the overall algorithm picks the most promising robot group with the neural network, decongests the group with the search-based solver, then picks the next most promising group with the neural network, and so on.

      Considering relationships

      The neural network can reason about groups of robots efficiently because it captures complicated relationships that exist between individual robots. For example, even though one robot may be far away from another initially, their paths could still cross during their trips.

      The technique also streamlines computation by encoding constraints only once, rather than repeating the process for each subproblem. For instance, in a warehouse with 800 robots, decongesting a group of 40 robots requires holding the other 760 robots as constraints. Other approaches require reasoning about all 800 robots once per group in each iteration.

      Instead, the researchers’ approach only requires reasoning about the 800 robots once across all groups in each iteration.

      “The warehouse is one big setting, so a lot of these robot groups will have some shared aspects of the larger problem. We designed our architecture to make use of this common information,” she adds.

      They tested their technique in several simulated environments, including some set up like warehouses, some with random obstacles, and even maze-like settings that emulate building interiors.

      By identifying more effective groups to decongest, their learning-based approach decongests the warehouse up to four times faster than strong, non-learning-based approaches. Even when they factored in the additional computational overhead of running the neural network, their approach still solved the problem 3.5 times faster.

      In the future, the researchers want to derive simple, rule-based insights from their neural model, since the decisions of the neural network can be opaque and difficult to interpret. Simpler, rule-based methods could also be easier to implement and maintain in actual robotic warehouse settings.

      “This approach is based on a novel architecture where convolution and attention mechanisms interact effectively and efficiently. Impressively, this leads to being able to take into account the spatiotemporal component of the constructed paths without the need of problem-specific feature engineering. The results are outstanding: Not only is it possible to improve on state-of-the-art large neighborhood search methods in terms of quality of the solution and speed, but the model generalizes to unseen cases wonderfully,” says Andrea Lodi, the Andrew H. and Ann R. Tisch Professor at Cornell Tech, and who was not involved with this research.

      This work was supported by Amazon and the MIT Amazon Science Hub. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Automated method helps researchers quantify uncertainty in their predictions

      by

      Pollsters trying to predict presidential election results and physicists searching for distant exoplanets have at least one thing in common: They often use a tried-and-true scientific technique called Bayesian inference.

      Bayesian inference allows these scientists to effectively estimate some unknown parameter — like the winner of an election — from data such as poll results. But Bayesian inference can be slow, sometimes consuming weeks or even months of computation time or requiring a researcher to spend hours deriving tedious equations by hand. 

      Researchers from MIT and elsewhere have introduced an optimization technique that speeds things up without requiring a scientist to do a lot of additional work. Their method can achieve more accurate results faster than another popular approach for accelerating Bayesian inference.

      Using this new automated technique, a scientist could simply input their model and then the optimization method does all the calculations under the hood to provide an approximation of some unknown parameter. The method also offers reliable uncertainty estimates that can help a researcher understand when to trust its predictions.

      This versatile technique could be applied to a wide array of scientific quandaries that incorporate Bayesian inference. For instance, it could be used by economists studying the impact of microcredit loans in developing nations or sports analysts using a model to rank top tennis players.

      “When you actually dig into what people are doing in the social sciences, physics, chemistry, or biology, they are often using a lot of the same tools under the hood. There are so many Bayesian analyses out there. If we can build a really great tool that makes these researchers lives easier, then we can really make a difference to a lot of people in many different research areas,” says senior author Tamara Broderick, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.

      Broderick is joined on the paper by co-lead authors Ryan Giordano, an assistant professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley; and Martin Ingram, a data scientist at the AI company KONUX. The paper was recently published in the Journal of Machine Learning Research.

      Faster results

      When researchers seek a faster form of Bayesian inference, they often turn to a technique called automatic differentiation variational inference (ADVI), which is often both fast to run and easy to use.

      But Broderick and her collaborators have found a number of practical issues with ADVI. It has to solve an optimization problem and can do so only approximately. So, ADVI can still require a lot of computation time and user effort to determine whether the approximate solution is good enough. And once it arrives at a solution, it tends to provide poor uncertainty estimates.

      Rather than reinventing the wheel, the team took many ideas from ADVI but turned them around to create a technique called deterministic ADVI (DADVI) that doesn’t have these downsides.

      With DADVI, it is very clear when the optimization is finished, so a user won’t need to spend extra computation time to ensure that the best solution has been found. DADVI also permits the incorporation of more powerful optimization methods that give it an additional speed and performance boost.

      Once it reaches a result, DADVI is set up to allow the use of uncertainty corrections. These corrections make its uncertainty estimates much more accurate than those of ADVI.

      DADVI also enables the user to clearly see how much error they have incurred in the approximation to the optimization problem. This prevents a user from needlessly running the optimization again and again with more and more resources to try and reduce the error.

      “We wanted to see if we could live up to the promise of black-box inference in the sense of, once the user makes their model, they can just run Bayesian inference and don’t have to derive everything by hand, they don’t need to figure out when to stop their algorithm, and they have a sense of how accurate their approximate solution is,” Broderick says.

      Defying conventional wisdom

      DADVI can be more effective than ADVI because it uses an efficient approximation method, called sample average approximation, which estimates an unknown quantity by taking a series of exact steps.

      Because the steps along the way are exact, it is clear when the objective has been reached. Plus, getting to that objective typically requires fewer steps.

      Often, researchers expect sample average approximation to be more computationally intensive than a more popular method, known as stochastic gradient, which is used by ADVI. But Broderick and her collaborators showed that, in many applications, this is not the case.

      “A lot of problems really do have special structure, and you can be so much more efficient and get better performance by taking advantage of that special structure. That is something we have really seen in this paper,” she adds.

      They tested DADVI on a number of real-world models and datasets, including a model used by economists to evaluate the effectiveness of microcredit loans and one used in ecology to determine whether a species is present at a particular site.

      Across the board, they found that DADVI can estimate unknown parameters faster and more reliably than other methods, and achieves as good or better accuracy than ADVI. Because it is easier to use than other techniques, DADVI could offer a boost to scientists in a wide variety of fields.

      In the future, the researchers want to dig deeper into correction methods for uncertainty estimates so they can better understand why these corrections can produce such accurate uncertainties, and when they could fall short.

      “In applied statistics, we often have to use approximate algorithms for problems that are too complex or high-dimensional to allow exact solutions to be computed in reasonable time. This new paper offers an interesting set of theory and empirical results that point to an improvement in a popular existing approximate algorithm for Bayesian inference,” says Andrew Gelman ’85, ’86, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, who was not involved with the study. “As one of the team involved in the creation of that earlier work, I’m happy to see our algorithm superseded by something more stable.”

      This research was supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER Award and the U.S. Office of Naval Research.  More