Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      MIT community members elected to the National Academy of Engineering for 2023

      by

      Seven MIT researchers are among the 106 new members and 18 international members elected to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) this week. Fourteen additional MIT alumni, including one member of the MIT Corporation, were also elected as new members.

      One of the highest professional distinctions for engineers, membership to the NAE is given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to “engineering research, practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering literature” and to “the pioneering of new and developing fields of technology, making major advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative approaches to engineering education.”

      The seven MIT researchers elected this year include:

      Regina Barzilay, the School of Engineering Distinguished Professor for AI and Health in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, principal investigator at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and faculty lead for the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health, for machine learning models that understand structures in text, molecules, and medical images.

      Markus J. Buehler, the Jerry McAfee (1940) Professor in Engineering from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, for implementing the use of nanomechanics to model and design fracture-resistant bioinspired materials.

      Elfatih A.B. Eltahir SM ’93, ScD ’93, the H.M. King Bhumibol Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, for advancing understanding of how climate and land use impact water availability, environmental and human health, and vector-borne diseases.

      Neil Gershenfeld, director of the Center for Bits and Atoms, for eliminating boundaries between digital and physical worlds, from quantum computing to digital materials to the internet of things.

      Roger D. Kamm SM ’73, PhD ’77, the Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Biological and Mechanical Engineering, for contributions to the understanding of mechanics in biology and medicine, and leadership in biomechanics.

      David W. Miller ’82, SM ’85, ScD ’88, the Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, for contributions in control technology for space-based telescope design, and leadership in cross-agency guidance of space technology.

      David Simchi-Levi, professor of civil and environmental engineering, core faculty member in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, and principal investigator at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, for contributions using optimization and stochastic modeling to enhance supply chain management and operations.

      Fariborz Maseeh ScD ’90, life member of the MIT Corporation and member of the School of Engineering Dean’s Advisory Council, was also elected as a member for leadership and advances in efficient design, development, and manufacturing of microelectromechanical systems, and for empowering engineering talent through public service.

      Thirteen additional alumni were elected to the National Academy of Engineering this year. They are: Mark George Allen SM ’86, PhD ’89; Shorya Awtar ScD ’04; Inderjit Chopra ScD ’77; David Huang ’85, SM ’89, PhD ’93; Eva Lerner-Lam SM ’78; David F. Merrion SM ’59; Virginia Norwood ’47; Martin Gerard Plys ’80, SM ’81, ScD ’84; Mark Prausnitz PhD ’94; Anil Kumar Sachdev ScD ’77; Christopher Scholz PhD ’67; Melody Ann Swartz PhD ’98; and Elias Towe ’80, SM ’81, PhD ’87.

      “I am delighted that seven members of MIT’s faculty and many members of the wider MIT community were elected to the National Academy of Engineering this year,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, the dean of the MIT School of Engineering and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “My warmest congratulations on this recognition of their many contributions to engineering research and education.”

      Including this year’s inductees, 156 members of the National Academy of Engineering are current or retired members of the MIT faculty and staff, or members of the MIT Corporation. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      When should data scientists try a new technique?

      by

      If a scientist wanted to forecast ocean currents to understand how pollution travels after an oil spill, she could use a common approach that looks at currents traveling between 10 and 200 kilometers. Or, she could choose a newer model that also includes shorter currents. This might be more accurate, but it could also require learning new software or running new computational experiments. How to know if it will be worth the time, cost, and effort to use the new method?

      A new approach developed by MIT researchers could help data scientists answer this question, whether they are looking at statistics on ocean currents, violent crime, children’s reading ability, or any number of other types of datasets.

      The team created a new measure, known as the “c-value,” that helps users choose between techniques based on the chance that a new method is more accurate for a specific dataset. This measure answers the question “is it likely that the new method is more accurate for this data than the common approach?”

      Traditionally, statisticians compare methods by averaging a method’s accuracy across all possible datasets. But just because a new method is better for all datasets on average doesn’t mean it will actually provide a better estimate using one particular dataset. Averages are not application-specific.

      So, researchers from MIT and elsewhere created the c-value, which is a dataset-specific tool. A high c-value means it is unlikely a new method will be less accurate than the original method on a specific data problem.

      In their proof-of-concept paper, the researchers describe and evaluate the c-value using real-world data analysis problems: modeling ocean currents, estimating violent crime in neighborhoods, and approximating student reading ability at schools. They show how the c-value could help statisticians and data analysts achieve more accurate results by indicating when to use alternative estimation methods they otherwise might have ignored.

      “What we are trying to do with this particular work is come up with something that is data specific. The classical notion of risk is really natural for someone developing a new method. That person wants their method to work well for all of their users on average. But a user of a method wants something that will work on their individual problem. We’ve shown that the c-value is a very practical proof-of-concept in that direction,” says senior author Tamara Broderick, an associate professor in the 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.

      She’s joined on the paper by Brian Trippe PhD ’22, a former graduate student in Broderick’s group who is now a postdoc at Columbia University; and Sameer Deshpande ’13, a former postdoc in Broderick’s group who is now an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. An accepted version of the paper is posted online in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

      Evaluating estimators

      The c-value is designed to help with data problems in which researchers seek to estimate an unknown parameter using a dataset, such as estimating average student reading ability from a dataset of assessment results and student survey responses. A researcher has two estimation methods and must decide which to use for this particular problem.

      The better estimation method is the one that results in less “loss,” which means the estimate will be closer to the ground truth. Consider again the forecasting of ocean currents: Perhaps being off by a few meters per hour isn’t so bad, but being off by many kilometers per hour makes the estimate useless. The ground truth is unknown, though; the scientist is trying to estimate it. Therefore, one can never actually compute the loss of an estimate for their specific data. That’s what makes comparing estimates challenging. The c-value helps a scientist navigate this challenge.

      The c-value equation uses a specific dataset to compute the estimate with each method, and then once more to compute the c-value between the methods. If the c-value is large, it is unlikely that the alternative method is going to be worse and yield less accurate estimates than the original method.

      “In our case, we are assuming that you conservatively want to stay with the default estimator, and you only want to go to the new estimator if you feel very confident about it. With a high c-value, it’s likely that the new estimate is more accurate. If you get a low c-value, you can’t say anything conclusive. You might have actually done better, but you just don’t know,” Broderick explains.

      Probing the theory

      The researchers put that theory to the test by evaluating three real-world data analysis problems.

      For one, they used the c-value to help determine which approach is best for modeling ocean currents, a problem Trippe has been tackling. Accurate models are important for predicting the dispersion of contaminants, like pollution from an oil spill. The team found that estimating ocean currents using multiple scales, one larger and one smaller, likely yields higher accuracy than using only larger scale measurements.

      “Oceans researchers are studying this, and the c-value can provide some statistical ‘oomph’ to support modeling the smaller scale,” Broderick says.

      In another example, the researchers sought to predict violent crime in census tracts in Philadelphia, an application Deshpande has been studying. Using the c-value, they found that one could get better estimates about violent crime rates by incorporating information about census-tract-level nonviolent crime into the analysis. They also used the c-value to show that additionally leveraging violent crime data from neighboring census tracts in the analysis isn’t likely to provide further accuracy improvements.

      “That doesn’t mean there isn’t an improvement, that just means that we don’t feel confident saying that you will get it,” she says.

      Now that they have proven the c-value in theory and shown how it could be used to tackle real-world data problems, the researchers want to expand the measure to more types of data and a wider set of model classes.

      The ultimate goal is to create a measure that is general enough for many more data analysis problems, and while there is still a lot of work to do to realize that objective, Broderick says this is an important and exciting first step in the right direction.

      This research was supported, in part, by an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy grant, a National Science Foundation CAREER Award, the Office of Naval Research, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A far-sighted approach to machine learning

      by

      Picture two teams squaring off on a football field. The players can cooperate to achieve an objective, and compete against other players with conflicting interests. That’s how the game works.

      Creating artificial intelligence agents that can learn to compete and cooperate as effectively as humans remains a thorny problem. A key challenge is enabling AI agents to anticipate future behaviors of other agents when they are all learning simultaneously.

      Because of the complexity of this problem, current approaches tend to be myopic; the agents can only guess the next few moves of their teammates or competitors, which leads to poor performance in the long run. 

      Researchers from MIT, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, and elsewhere have developed a new approach that gives AI agents a farsighted perspective. Their machine-learning framework enables cooperative or competitive AI agents to consider what other agents will do as time approaches infinity, not just over a few next steps. The agents then adapt their behaviors accordingly to influence other agents’ future behaviors and arrive at an optimal, long-term solution.

      This framework could be used by a group of autonomous drones working together to find a lost hiker in a thick forest, or by self-driving cars that strive to keep passengers safe by anticipating future moves of other vehicles driving on a busy highway.

      “When AI agents are cooperating or competing, what matters most is when their behaviors converge at some point in the future. There are a lot of transient behaviors along the way that don’t matter very much in the long run. Reaching this converged behavior is what we really care about, and we now have a mathematical way to enable that,” says Dong-Ki Kim, a graduate student in the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and lead author of a paper describing this framework.

      The senior author is Jonathan P. How, the Richard C. Maclaurin Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a member of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. Co-authors include others at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, IBM Research, Mila-Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, and Oxford University. The research will be presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.

      Play video

      In this demo video, the red robot, which has been trained using the researchers’ machine-learning system, is able to defeat the green robot by learning more effective behaviors that take advantage of the constantly changing strategy of its opponent.

      More agents, more problems

      The researchers focused on a problem known as multiagent reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a form of machine learning in which an AI agent learns by trial and error. Researchers give the agent a reward for “good” behaviors that help it achieve a goal. The agent adapts its behavior to maximize that reward until it eventually becomes an expert at a task.

      But when many cooperative or competing agents are simultaneously learning, things become increasingly complex. As agents consider more future steps of their fellow agents, and how their own behavior influences others, the problem soon requires far too much computational power to solve efficiently. This is why other approaches only focus on the short term.

      “The AIs really want to think about the end of the game, but they don’t know when the game will end. They need to think about how to keep adapting their behavior into infinity so they can win at some far time in the future. Our paper essentially proposes a new objective that enables an AI to think about infinity,” says Kim.

      But since it is impossible to plug infinity into an algorithm, the researchers designed their system so agents focus on a future point where their behavior will converge with that of other agents, known as equilibrium. An equilibrium point determines the long-term performance of agents, and multiple equilibria can exist in a multiagent scenario. Therefore, an effective agent actively influences the future behaviors of other agents in such a way that they reach a desirable equilibrium from the agent’s perspective. If all agents influence each other, they converge to a general concept that the researchers call an “active equilibrium.”

      The machine-learning framework they developed, known as FURTHER (which stands for FUlly Reinforcing acTive influence witH averagE Reward), enables agents to learn how to adapt their behaviors as they interact with other agents to achieve this active equilibrium.

      FURTHER does this using two machine-learning modules. The first, an inference module, enables an agent to guess the future behaviors of other agents and the learning algorithms they use, based solely on their prior actions.

      This information is fed into the reinforcement learning module, which the agent uses to adapt its behavior and influence other agents in a way that maximizes its reward.

      “The challenge was thinking about infinity. We had to use a lot of different mathematical tools to enable that, and make some assumptions to get it to work in practice,” Kim says.

      Winning in the long run

      They tested their approach against other multiagent reinforcement learning frameworks in several different scenarios, including a pair of robots fighting sumo-style and a battle pitting two 25-agent teams against one another. In both instances, the AI agents using FURTHER won the games more often.

      Since their approach is decentralized, which means the agents learn to win the games independently, it is also more scalable than other methods that require a central computer to control the agents, Kim explains.

      The researchers used games to test their approach, but FURTHER could be used to tackle any kind of multiagent problem. For instance, it could be applied by economists seeking to develop sound policy in situations where many interacting entitles have behaviors and interests that change over time.

      Economics is one application Kim is particularly excited about studying. He also wants to dig deeper into the concept of an active equilibrium and continue enhancing the FURTHER framework.

      This research is funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Investigating at the interface of data science and computing

      by

      A visual model of Guy Bresler’s research would probably look something like a Venn diagram. He works at the four-way intersection where theoretical computer science, statistics, probability, and information theory collide.

      “There are always new things to do be done at the interface. There are always opportunities for entirely new questions to ask,” says Bresler, an associate professor who recently earned tenure in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

      A theoretician, he aims to understand the delicate interplay between structure in data, the complexity of models, and the amount of computation needed to learn those models. Recently, his biggest focus has been trying to unveil fundamental phenomena that are broadly responsible for determining the computational complexity of statistics problems — and finding the “sweet spot” where available data and computation resources enable researchers to effectively solve a problem.

      When trying to solve a complex statistics problem, there is often a tug-of-war between data and computation. Without enough data, the computation needed to solve a statistical problem can be intractable, or at least consume a staggering amount of resources. But get just enough data and suddenly the intractable becomes solvable; the amount of computation needed to come up with a solution drops dramatically.

      The majority of modern statistical problems exhibits this sort of trade-off between computation and data, with applications ranging from drug development to weather prediction. Another well-studied and practically important example is cryo-electron microscopy, Bresler says. With this technique, researchers use an electron microscope to take images of molecules in different orientations. The central challenge is how to solve the inverse problem — determining the molecule’s structure given the noisy data. Many statistical problems can be formulated as inverse problems of this sort.

      One aim of Bresler’s work is to elucidate relationships between the wide variety of different statistics problems currently being studied. The dream is to classify statistical problems into equivalence classes, as has been done for other types of computational problems in the field of computational complexity. Showing these sorts of relationships means that, instead of trying to understand each problem in isolation, researchers can transfer their understanding from a well-studied problem to a poorly understood one, he says.

      Adopting a theoretical approach

      For Bresler, a desire to theoretically understand various basic phenomena inspired him to follow a path into academia.

      Both of his parents worked as professors and showed how fulfilling academia can be, he says. His earliest introduction to the theoretical side of engineering came from his father, who is an electrical engineer and theoretician studying signal processing. Bresler was inspired by his work from an early age. As an undergraduate at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, he bounced between physics, math, and computer science courses. But no matter the topic, he gravitated toward the theoretical viewpoint.

      In graduate school at the University of California at Berkeley, Bresler enjoyed the opportunity to work in a wide variety of topics spanning probability, theoretical computer science, and mathematics. His driving motivator was a love of learning new things.

      “Working at the interface of multiple fields with new questions, there is a feeling that one had better learn as much as possible if one is to have any chance of finding the right tools to answer those questions,” he says.

      That curiosity led him to MIT for a postdoc in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) in 2013, and then he joined the faculty two years later as an assistant professor in EECS. He was named an associate professor in 2019.

      Bresler says he was drawn to the intellectual atmosphere at MIT, as well as the supportive environment for launching bold research quests and trying to make progress in new areas of study.

      Opportunities for collaboration

      “What really struck me was how vibrant and energetic and collaborative MIT is. I have this mental list of more than 20 people here who I would love to have lunch with every single week and collaborate with on research. So just based on sheer numbers, joining MIT was a clear win,” he says.

      He’s especially enjoyed collaborating with his students, who continually teach him new things and ask deep questions that drive exciting research projects. One such student, Matthew Brennan, who was one of Bresler’s closest collaborators, tragically and unexpectedly passed away in January, 2021.

      The shock from Brennan’s death is still raw for Bresler, and it derailed his research for a time.

      “Beyond his own prodigious capabilities and creativity, he had this amazing ability to listen to an idea of mine that was almost completely wrong, extract from it a useful piece, and then pass the ball back,” he says. “We had the same vision for what we wanted to achieve in the work, and we were driven to try to tell a certain story. At the time, almost nobody was pursuing this particular line of work, and it was in a way kind of lonely. But he trusted me, and we encouraged one another to keep at it when things seemed bleak.”

      Those lessons in perseverance fuel Bresler as he and his students continue exploring questions that, by their nature, are difficult to answer.

      One area he’s worked in on-and-off for over a decade involves learning graphical models from data. Models of certain types of data, such as time-series data consisting of temperature readings, are often constructed by domain experts who have relevant knowledge and can build a reasonable model, he explains.

      But for many types of data with complex dependencies, such as social network or biological data, it is not at all clear what structure a model should take. Bresler’s work seeks to estimate a structured model from data, which could then be used for downstream applications like making recommendations or better predicting the weather.

      The basic question of identifying good models, whether algorithmically in a complex setting or analytically, by specifying a useful toy model for theoretical analysis, connects the abstract work with engineering practice, he says.

      “In general, modeling is an art. Real life is complicated and if you write down some super-complicated model that tries to capture every feature of a problem, it is doomed,” says Bresler. “You have to think about the problem and understand the practical side of things on some level to identify the correct features of the problem to be modeled, so that you can hope to actually solve it and gain insight into what one should do in practice.”

      Outside the lab, Bresler often finds himself solving very different kinds of problems. He is an avid rock climber and spends much of his free time bouldering throughout New England.

      “I really love it. It is a good excuse to get outside and get sucked into a whole different world. Even though there is problem solving involved, and there are similarities at the philosophical level, it is totally orthogonal to sitting down and doing math,” he says. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Costis Daskalakis appointed inaugural Avanessians Professor in the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

      by

      The MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing has named Costis Daskalakis as the inaugural holder of the Avanessians Professorship. His chair began on July 1.

      Daskalakis is the first person appointed to this position generously endowed by Armen Avanessians ’81. Established in the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, the new chair provides Daskalakis with additional support to pursue his research and develop his career.

      “I’m delighted to recognize Costis for his scholarship and extraordinary achievements with this distinguished professorship,” says Daniel Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Ellis Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

      A professor in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Daskalakis is a theoretical computer scientist who works at the interface of game theory, economics, probability theory, statistics, and machine learning. He has resolved long-standing open problems about the computational complexity of the Nash equilibrium, the mathematical structure and computational complexity of multi-item auctions, and the behavior of machine-learning methods such as the expectation-maximization algorithm. He has obtained computationally and statistically efficient methods for statistical hypothesis testing and learning in high-dimensional settings, as well as results characterizing the structure and concentration properties of high-dimensional distributions. His current work focuses on multi-agent learning, learning from biased and dependent data, causal inference, and econometrics.

      A native of Greece, Daskalakis joined the MIT faculty in 2009. He is a member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and is affiliated with the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems and the Operations Research Center. He is also an investigator in the Foundations of Data Science Institute.

      He has previously received such honors as the 2018 Nevanlinna Prize from the International Mathematical Union, the 2018 ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award, the Kalai Game Theory and Computer Science Prize from the Game Theory Society, and the 2008 ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Building explainability into the components of machine-learning models

      by

      Explanation methods that help users understand and trust machine-learning models often describe how much certain features used in the model contribute to its prediction. For example, if a model predicts a patient’s risk of developing cardiac disease, a physician might want to know how strongly the patient’s heart rate data influences that prediction.

      But if those features are so complex or convoluted that the user can’t understand them, does the explanation method do any good?

      MIT researchers are striving to improve the interpretability of features so decision makers will be more comfortable using the outputs of machine-learning models. Drawing on years of field work, they developed a taxonomy to help developers craft features that will be easier for their target audience to understand.

      “We found that out in the real world, even though we were using state-of-the-art ways of explaining machine-learning models, there is still a lot of confusion stemming from the features, not from the model itself,” says Alexandra Zytek, an electrical engineering and computer science PhD student and lead author of a paper introducing the taxonomy.

      To build the taxonomy, the researchers defined properties that make features interpretable for five types of users, from artificial intelligence experts to the people affected by a machine-learning model’s prediction. They also offer instructions for how model creators can transform features into formats that will be easier for a layperson to comprehend.

      They hope their work will inspire model builders to consider using interpretable features from the beginning of the development process, rather than trying to work backward and focus on explainability after the fact.

      MIT co-authors include Dongyu Liu, a postdoc; visiting professor Laure Berti-Équille, research director at IRD; and senior author Kalyan Veeramachaneni, principal research scientist in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and leader of the Data to AI group. They are joined by Ignacio Arnaldo, a principal data scientist at Corelight. The research is published in the June edition of the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining’s peer-reviewed Explorations Newsletter.

      Real-world lessons

      Features are input variables that are fed to machine-learning models; they are usually drawn from the columns in a dataset. Data scientists typically select and handcraft features for the model, and they mainly focus on ensuring features are developed to improve model accuracy, not on whether a decision-maker can understand them, Veeramachaneni explains.

      For several years, he and his team have worked with decision makers to identify machine-learning usability challenges. These domain experts, most of whom lack machine-learning knowledge, often don’t trust models because they don’t understand the features that influence predictions.

      For one project, they partnered with clinicians in a hospital ICU who used machine learning to predict the risk a patient will face complications after cardiac surgery. Some features were presented as aggregated values, like the trend of a patient’s heart rate over time. While features coded this way were “model ready” (the model could process the data), clinicians didn’t understand how they were computed. They would rather see how these aggregated features relate to original values, so they could identify anomalies in a patient’s heart rate, Liu says.

      By contrast, a group of learning scientists preferred features that were aggregated. Instead of having a feature like “number of posts a student made on discussion forums” they would rather have related features grouped together and labeled with terms they understood, like “participation.”

      “With interpretability, one size doesn’t fit all. When you go from area to area, there are different needs. And interpretability itself has many levels,” Veeramachaneni says.

      The idea that one size doesn’t fit all is key to the researchers’ taxonomy. They define properties that can make features more or less interpretable for different decision makers and outline which properties are likely most important to specific users.

      For instance, machine-learning developers might focus on having features that are compatible with the model and predictive, meaning they are expected to improve the model’s performance.

      On the other hand, decision makers with no machine-learning experience might be better served by features that are human-worded, meaning they are described in a way that is natural for users, and understandable, meaning they refer to real-world metrics users can reason about.

      “The taxonomy says, if you are making interpretable features, to what level are they interpretable? You may not need all levels, depending on the type of domain experts you are working with,” Zytek says.

      Putting interpretability first

      The researchers also outline feature engineering techniques a developer can employ to make features more interpretable for a specific audience.

      Feature engineering is a process in which data scientists transform data into a format machine-learning models can process, using techniques like aggregating data or normalizing values. Most models also can’t process categorical data unless they are converted to a numerical code. These transformations are often nearly impossible for laypeople to unpack.

      Creating interpretable features might involve undoing some of that encoding, Zytek says. For instance, a common feature engineering technique organizes spans of data so they all contain the same number of years. To make these features more interpretable, one could group age ranges using human terms, like infant, toddler, child, and teen. Or rather than using a transformed feature like average pulse rate, an interpretable feature might simply be the actual pulse rate data, Liu adds.

      “In a lot of domains, the tradeoff between interpretable features and model accuracy is actually very small. When we were working with child welfare screeners, for example, we retrained the model using only features that met our definitions for interpretability, and the performance decrease was almost negligible,” Zytek says.

      Building off this work, the researchers are developing a system that enables a model developer to handle complicated feature transformations in a more efficient manner, to create human-centered explanations for machine-learning models. This new system will also convert algorithms designed to explain model-ready datasets into formats that can be understood by decision makers. More

    • 50 Shares109 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Living better with algorithms

      by

      Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) student Sarah Cen remembers the lecture that sent her down the track to an upstream question.

      At a talk on ethical artificial intelligence, the speaker brought up a variation on the famous trolley problem, which outlines a philosophical choice between two undesirable outcomes.

      The speaker’s scenario: Say a self-driving car is traveling down a narrow alley with an elderly woman walking on one side and a small child on the other, and no way to thread between both without a fatality. Who should the car hit?

      Then the speaker said: Let’s take a step back. Is this the question we should even be asking?

      That’s when things clicked for Cen. Instead of considering the point of impact, a self-driving car could have avoided choosing between two bad outcomes by making a decision earlier on — the speaker pointed out that, when entering the alley, the car could have determined that the space was narrow and slowed to a speed that would keep everyone safe.

      Recognizing that today’s AI safety approaches often resemble the trolley problem, focusing on downstream regulation such as liability after someone is left with no good choices, Cen wondered: What if we could design better upstream and downstream safeguards to such problems? This question has informed much of Cen’s work.

      “Engineering systems are not divorced from the social systems on which they intervene,” Cen says. Ignoring this fact risks creating tools that fail to be useful when deployed or, more worryingly, that are harmful.

      Cen arrived at LIDS in 2018 via a slightly roundabout route. She first got a taste for research during her undergraduate degree at Princeton University, where she majored in mechanical engineering. For her master’s degree, she changed course, working on radar solutions in mobile robotics (primarily for self-driving cars) at Oxford University. There, she developed an interest in AI algorithms, curious about when and why they misbehave. So, she came to MIT and LIDS for her doctoral research, working with Professor Devavrat Shah in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, for a stronger theoretical grounding in information systems.

      Auditing social media algorithms

      Together with Shah and other collaborators, Cen has worked on a wide range of projects during her time at LIDS, many of which tie directly to her interest in the interactions between humans and computational systems. In one such project, Cen studies options for regulating social media. Her recent work provides a method for translating human-readable regulations into implementable audits.

      To get a sense of what this means, suppose that regulators require that any public health content — for example, on vaccines — not be vastly different for politically left- and right-leaning users. How should auditors check that a social media platform complies with this regulation? Can a platform be made to comply with the regulation without damaging its bottom line? And how does compliance affect the actual content that users do see?

      Designing an auditing procedure is difficult in large part because there are so many stakeholders when it comes to social media. Auditors have to inspect the algorithm without accessing sensitive user data. They also have to work around tricky trade secrets, which can prevent them from getting a close look at the very algorithm that they are auditing because these algorithms are legally protected. Other considerations come into play as well, such as balancing the removal of misinformation with the protection of free speech.

      To meet these challenges, Cen and Shah developed an auditing procedure that does not need more than black-box access to the social media algorithm (which respects trade secrets), does not remove content (which avoids issues of censorship), and does not require access to users (which preserves users’ privacy).

      In their design process, the team also analyzed the properties of their auditing procedure, finding that it ensures a desirable property they call decision robustness. As good news for the platform, they show that a platform can pass the audit without sacrificing profits. Interestingly, they also found the audit naturally incentivizes the platform to show users diverse content, which is known to help reduce the spread of misinformation, counteract echo chambers, and more.

      Who gets good outcomes and who gets bad ones?

      In another line of research, Cen looks at whether people can receive good long-term outcomes when they not only compete for resources, but also don’t know upfront what resources are best for them.

      Some platforms, such as job-search platforms or ride-sharing apps, are part of what is called a matching market, which uses an algorithm to match one set of individuals (such as workers or riders) with another (such as employers or drivers). In many cases, individuals have matching preferences that they learn through trial and error. In labor markets, for example, workers learn their preferences about what kinds of jobs they want, and employers learn their preferences about the qualifications they seek from workers.

      But learning can be disrupted by competition. If workers with a particular background are repeatedly denied jobs in tech because of high competition for tech jobs, for instance, they may never get the knowledge they need to make an informed decision about whether they want to work in tech. Similarly, tech employers may never see and learn what these workers could do if they were hired.

      Cen’s work examines this interaction between learning and competition, studying whether it is possible for individuals on both sides of the matching market to walk away happy.

      Modeling such matching markets, Cen and Shah found that it is indeed possible to get to a stable outcome (workers aren’t incentivized to leave the matching market), with low regret (workers are happy with their long-term outcomes), fairness (happiness is evenly distributed), and high social welfare.

      Interestingly, it’s not obvious that it’s possible to get stability, low regret, fairness, and high social welfare simultaneously.  So another important aspect of the research was uncovering when it is possible to achieve all four criteria at once and exploring the implications of those conditions.

      What is the effect of X on Y?

      For the next few years, though, Cen plans to work on a new project, studying how to quantify the effect of an action X on an outcome Y when it’s expensive — or impossible — to measure this effect, focusing in particular on systems that have complex social behaviors.

      For instance, when Covid-19 cases surged in the pandemic, many cities had to decide what restrictions to adopt, such as mask mandates, business closures, or stay-home orders. They had to act fast and balance public health with community and business needs, public spending, and a host of other considerations.

      Typically, in order to estimate the effect of restrictions on the rate of infection, one might compare the rates of infection in areas that underwent different interventions. If one county has a mask mandate while its neighboring county does not, one might think comparing the counties’ infection rates would reveal the effectiveness of mask mandates. 

      But of course, no county exists in a vacuum. If, for instance, people from both counties gather to watch a football game in the maskless county every week, people from both counties mix. These complex interactions matter, and Sarah plans to study questions of cause and effect in such settings.

      “We’re interested in how decisions or interventions affect an outcome of interest, such as how criminal justice reform affects incarceration rates or how an ad campaign might change the public’s behaviors,” Cen says.

      Cen has also applied the principles of promoting inclusivity to her work in the MIT community.

      As one of three co-presidents of the Graduate Women in MIT EECS student group, she helped organize the inaugural GW6 research summit featuring the research of women graduate students — not only to showcase positive role models to students, but also to highlight the many successful graduate women at MIT who are not to be underestimated.

      Whether in computing or in the community, a system taking steps to address bias is one that enjoys legitimacy and trust, Cen says. “Accountability, legitimacy, trust — these principles play crucial roles in society and, ultimately, will determine which systems endure with time.”  More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      On the road to cleaner, greener, and faster driving

      by

      No one likes sitting at a red light. But signalized intersections aren’t just a minor nuisance for drivers; vehicles consume fuel and emit greenhouse gases while waiting for the light to change.

      What if motorists could time their trips so they arrive at the intersection when the light is green? While that might be just a lucky break for a human driver, it could be achieved more consistently by an autonomous vehicle that uses artificial intelligence to control its speed.

      In a new study, MIT researchers demonstrate a machine-learning approach that can learn to control a fleet of autonomous vehicles as they approach and travel through a signalized intersection in a way that keeps traffic flowing smoothly.

      Using simulations, they found that their approach reduces fuel consumption and emissions while improving average vehicle speed. The technique gets the best results if all cars on the road are autonomous, but even if only 25 percent use their control algorithm, it still leads to substantial fuel and emissions benefits.

      “This is a really interesting place to intervene. No one’s life is better because they were stuck at an intersection. With a lot of other climate change interventions, there is a quality-of-life difference that is expected, so there is a barrier to entry there. Here, the barrier is much lower,” says senior author Cathy Wu, the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a member of the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).

      The lead author of the study is Vindula Jayawardana, a graduate student in LIDS and the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The research will be presented at the European Control Conference.

      Intersection intricacies

      While humans may drive past a green light without giving it much thought, intersections can present billions of different scenarios depending on the number of lanes, how the signals operate, the number of vehicles and their speeds, the presence of pedestrians and cyclists, etc.

      Typical approaches for tackling intersection control problems use mathematical models to solve one simple, ideal intersection. That looks good on paper, but likely won’t hold up in the real world, where traffic patterns are often about as messy as they come.

      Wu and Jayawardana shifted gears and approached the problem using a model-free technique known as deep reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a trial-and-error method where the control algorithm learns to make a sequence of decisions. It is rewarded when it finds a good sequence. With deep reinforcement learning, the algorithm leverages assumptions learned by a neural network to find shortcuts to good sequences, even if there are billions of possibilities.

      This is useful for solving a long-horizon problem like this; the control algorithm must issue upwards of 500 acceleration instructions to a vehicle over an extended time period, Wu explains.

      “And we have to get the sequence right before we know that we have done a good job of mitigating emissions and getting to the intersection at a good speed,” she adds.

      But there’s an additional wrinkle. The researchers want the system to learn a strategy that reduces fuel consumption and limits the impact on travel time. These goals can be conflicting.

      “To reduce travel time, we want the car to go fast, but to reduce emissions, we want the car to slow down or not move at all. Those competing rewards can be very confusing to the learning agent,” Wu says.

      While it is challenging to solve this problem in its full generality, the researchers employed a workaround using a technique known as reward shaping. With reward shaping, they give the system some domain knowledge it is unable to learn on its own. In this case, they penalized the system whenever the vehicle came to a complete stop, so it would learn to avoid that action.

      Traffic tests

      Once they developed an effective control algorithm, they evaluated it using a traffic simulation platform with a single intersection. The control algorithm is applied to a fleet of connected autonomous vehicles, which can communicate with upcoming traffic lights to receive signal phase and timing information and observe their immediate surroundings. The control algorithm tells each vehicle how to accelerate and decelerate.

      Their system didn’t create any stop-and-go traffic as vehicles approached the intersection. (Stop-and-go traffic occurs when cars are forced to come to a complete stop due to stopped traffic ahead). In simulations, more cars made it through in a single green phase, which outperformed a model that simulates human drivers. When compared to other optimization methods also designed to avoid stop-and-go traffic, their technique resulted in larger fuel consumption and emissions reductions. If every vehicle on the road is autonomous, their control system can reduce fuel consumption by 18 percent and carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent, while boosting travel speeds by 20 percent.

      “A single intervention having 20 to 25 percent reduction in fuel or emissions is really incredible. But what I find interesting, and was really hoping to see, is this non-linear scaling. If we only control 25 percent of vehicles, that gives us 50 percent of the benefits in terms of fuel and emissions reduction. That means we don’t have to wait until we get to 100 percent autonomous vehicles to get benefits from this approach,” she says.

      Down the road, the researchers want to study interaction effects between multiple intersections. They also plan to explore how different intersection set-ups (number of lanes, signals, timings, etc.) can influence travel time, emissions, and fuel consumption. In addition, they intend to study how their control system could impact safety when autonomous vehicles and human drivers share the road. For instance, even though autonomous vehicles may drive differently than human drivers, slower roadways and roadways with more consistent speeds could improve safety, Wu says.

      While this work is still in its early stages, Wu sees this approach as one that could be more feasibly implemented in the near-term.

      “The aim in this work is to move the needle in sustainable mobility. We want to dream, as well, but these systems are big monsters of inertia. Identifying points of intervention that are small changes to the system but have significant impact is something that gets me up in the morning,” she says.  

      This work was supported, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. More