Machine learning

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Teaching AI to ask clinical questions

      by

      Physicians often query a patient’s electronic health record for information that helps them make treatment decisions, but the cumbersome nature of these records hampers the process. Research has shown that even when a doctor has been trained to use an electronic health record (EHR), finding an answer to just one question can take, on average, more than eight minutes.

      The more time physicians must spend navigating an oftentimes clunky EHR interface, the less time they have to interact with patients and provide treatment.

      Researchers have begun developing machine-learning models that can streamline the process by automatically finding information physicians need in an EHR. However, training effective models requires huge datasets of relevant medical questions, which are often hard to come by due to privacy restrictions. Existing models struggle to generate authentic questions — those that would be asked by a human doctor — and are often unable to successfully find correct answers.

      To overcome this data shortage, researchers at MIT partnered with medical experts to study the questions physicians ask when reviewing EHRs. Then, they built a publicly available dataset of more than 2,000 clinically relevant questions written by these medical experts.

      When they used their dataset to train a machine-learning model to generate clinical questions, they found that the model asked high-quality and authentic questions, as compared to real questions from medical experts, more than 60 percent of the time.

      With this dataset, they plan to generate vast numbers of authentic medical questions and then use those questions to train a machine-learning model which would help doctors find sought-after information in a patient’s record more efficiently.

      “Two thousand questions may sound like a lot, but when you look at machine-learning models being trained nowadays, they have so much data, maybe billions of data points. When you train machine-learning models to work in health care settings, you have to be really creative because there is such a lack of data,” says lead author Eric Lehman, a graduate student in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

      The senior author is Peter Szolovits, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) who heads the Clinical Decision-Making Group in CSAIL and is also a member of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. The research paper, a collaboration between co-authors at MIT, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, IBM Research, and the doctors and medical experts who helped create questions and participated in the study, will be presented at the annual conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

      “Realistic data is critical for training models that are relevant to the task yet difficult to find or create,” Szolovits says. “The value of this work is in carefully collecting questions asked by clinicians about patient cases, from which we are able to develop methods that use these data and general language models to ask further plausible questions.”

      Data deficiency

      The few large datasets of clinical questions the researchers were able to find had a host of issues, Lehman explains. Some were composed of medical questions asked by patients on web forums, which are a far cry from physician questions. Other datasets contained questions produced from templates, so they are mostly identical in structure, making many questions unrealistic.

      “Collecting high-quality data is really important for doing machine-learning tasks, especially in a health care context, and we’ve shown that it can be done,” Lehman says.

      To build their dataset, the MIT researchers worked with practicing physicians and medical students in their last year of training. They gave these medical experts more than 100 EHR discharge summaries and told them to read through a summary and ask any questions they might have. The researchers didn’t put any restrictions on question types or structures in an effort to gather natural questions. They also asked the medical experts to identify the “trigger text” in the EHR that led them to ask each question.

      For instance, a medical expert might read a note in the EHR that says a patient’s past medical history is significant for prostate cancer and hypothyroidism. The trigger text “prostate cancer” could lead the expert to ask questions like “date of diagnosis?” or “any interventions done?”

      They found that most questions focused on symptoms, treatments, or the patient’s test results. While these findings weren’t unexpected, quantifying the number of questions about each broad topic will help them build an effective dataset for use in a real, clinical setting, says Lehman.

      Once they had compiled their dataset of questions and accompanying trigger text, they used it to train machine-learning models to ask new questions based on the trigger text.

      Then the medical experts determined whether those questions were “good” using four metrics: understandability (Does the question make sense to a human physician?), triviality (Is the question too easily answerable from the trigger text?), medical relevance (Does it makes sense to ask this question based on the context?), and relevancy to the trigger (Is the trigger related to the question?).

      Cause for concern

      The researchers found that when a model was given trigger text, it was able to generate a good question 63 percent of the time, whereas a human physician would ask a good question 80 percent of the time.

      They also trained models to recover answers to clinical questions using the publicly available datasets they had found at the outset of this project. Then they tested these trained models to see if they could find answers to “good” questions asked by human medical experts.

      The models were only able to recover about 25 percent of answers to physician-generated questions.

      “That result is really concerning. What people thought were good-performing models were, in practice, just awful because the evaluation questions they were testing on were not good to begin with,” Lehman says.

      The team is now applying this work toward their initial goal: building a model that can automatically answer physicians’ questions in an EHR. For the next step, they will use their dataset to train a machine-learning model that can automatically generate thousands or millions of good clinical questions, which can then be used to train a new model for automatic question answering.

      While there is still much work to do before that model could be a reality, Lehman is encouraged by the strong initial results the team demonstrated with this dataset.

      This research was supported, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. Additional co-authors include Leo Anthony Celi of the MIT Institute for Medical Engineering and Science; Preethi Raghavan and Jennifer J. Liang of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab; Dana Moukheiber of the University of Buffalo; Vladislav Lialin and Anna Rumshisky of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell; Katelyn Legaspi, Nicole Rose I. Alberto, Richard Raymund R. Ragasa, Corinna Victoria M. Puyat, Isabelle Rose I. Alberto, and Pia Gabrielle I. Alfonso of the University of the Philippines; Anne Janelle R. Sy and Patricia Therese S. Pile of the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center; Marianne Taliño of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Medicine and Public Health; and Byron C. Wallace of Northeastern University. 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

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Exploring emerging topics in artificial intelligence policy

      by

      Members of the public sector, private sector, and academia convened for the second AI Policy Forum Symposium last month to explore critical directions and questions posed by artificial intelligence in our economies and societies.

      The virtual event, hosted by the AI Policy Forum (AIPF) — an undertaking by the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing to bridge high-level principles of AI policy with the practices and trade-offs of governing — brought together an array of distinguished panelists to delve into four cross-cutting topics: law, auditing, health care, and mobility.

      In the last year there have been substantial changes in the regulatory and policy landscape around AI in several countries — most notably in Europe with the development of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, the first attempt by a major regulator to propose a law on artificial intelligence. In the United States, the National AI Initiative Act of 2020, which became law in January 2021, is providing a coordinated program across federal government to accelerate AI research and application for economic prosperity and security gains. Finally, China recently advanced several new regulations of its own.

      Each of these developments represents a different approach to legislating AI, but what makes a good AI law? And when should AI legislation be based on binding rules with penalties versus establishing voluntary guidelines?

      Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard Law School and director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, says the self-regulatory approach taken during the expansion of the internet had its limitations with companies struggling to balance their interests with those of their industry and the public.

      “One lesson might be that actually having representative government take an active role early on is a good idea,” he says. “It’s just that they’re challenged by the fact that there appears to be two phases in this environment of regulation. One, too early to tell, and two, too late to do anything about it. In AI I think a lot of people would say we’re still in the ‘too early to tell’ stage but given that there’s no middle zone before it’s too late, it might still call for some regulation.”

      A theme that came up repeatedly throughout the first panel on AI laws — a conversation moderated by Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and chair of the AI Policy Forum — was the notion of trust. “If you told me the truth consistently, I would say you are an honest person. If AI could provide something similar, something that I can say is consistent and is the same, then I would say it’s trusted AI,” says Bitange Ndemo, professor of entrepreneurship at the University of Nairobi and the former permanent secretary of Kenya’s Ministry of Information and Communication.

      Eva Kaili, vice president of the European Parliament, adds that “In Europe, whenever you use something, like any medication, you know that it has been checked. You know you can trust it. You know the controls are there. We have to achieve the same with AI.” Kalli further stresses that building trust in AI systems will not only lead to people using more applications in a safe manner, but that AI itself will reap benefits as greater amounts of data will be generated as a result.

      The rapidly increasing applicability of AI across fields has prompted the need to address both the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies and the impact they have on social and ethical issues such as privacy, fairness, bias, transparency, and accountability. In health care, for example, new techniques in machine learning have shown enormous promise for improving quality and efficiency, but questions of equity, data access and privacy, safety and reliability, and immunology and global health surveillance remain at large.

      MIT’s Marzyeh Ghassemi, an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, and David Sontag, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science, collaborated with Ziad Obermeyer, an associate professor of health policy and management at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health, to organize AIPF Health Wide Reach, a series of sessions to discuss issues of data sharing and privacy in clinical AI. The organizers assembled experts devoted to AI, policy, and health from around the world with the goal of understanding what can be done to decrease barriers to access to high-quality health data to advance more innovative, robust, and inclusive research results while being respectful of patient privacy.

      Over the course of the series, members of the group presented on a topic of expertise and were tasked with proposing concrete policy approaches to the challenge discussed. Drawing on these wide-ranging conversations, participants unveiled their findings during the symposium, covering nonprofit and government success stories and limited access models; upside demonstrations; legal frameworks, regulation, and funding; technical approaches to privacy; and infrastructure and data sharing. The group then discussed some of their recommendations that are summarized in a report that will be released soon.

      One of the findings calls for the need to make more data available for research use. Recommendations that stem from this finding include updating regulations to promote data sharing to enable easier access to safe harbors such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has for de-identification, as well as expanding funding for private health institutions to curate datasets, amongst others. Another finding, to remove barriers to data for researchers, supports a recommendation to decrease obstacles to research and development on federally created health data. “If this is data that should be accessible because it’s funded by some federal entity, we should easily establish the steps that are going to be part of gaining access to that so that it’s a more inclusive and equitable set of research opportunities for all,” says Ghassemi. The group also recommends taking a careful look at the ethical principles that govern data sharing. While there are already many principles proposed around this, Ghassemi says that “obviously you can’t satisfy all levers or buttons at once, but we think that this is a trade-off that’s very important to think through intelligently.”

      In addition to law and health care, other facets of AI policy explored during the event included auditing and monitoring AI systems at scale, and the role AI plays in mobility and the range of technical, business, and policy challenges for autonomous vehicles in particular.

      The AI Policy Forum Symposium was an effort to bring together communities of practice with the shared aim of designing the next chapter of AI. In his closing remarks, Aleksander Madry, the Cadence Designs Systems Professor of Computing at MIT and faculty co-lead of the AI Policy Forum, emphasized the importance of collaboration and the need for different communities to communicate with each other in order to truly make an impact in the AI policy space.

      “The dream here is that we all can meet together — researchers, industry, policymakers, and other stakeholders — and really talk to each other, understand each other’s concerns, and think together about solutions,” Madry said. “This is the mission of the AI Policy Forum and this is what we want to enable.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Robots play with play dough

      by

      The inner child in many of us feels an overwhelming sense of joy when stumbling across a pile of the fluorescent, rubbery mixture of water, salt, and flour that put goo on the map: play dough. (Even if this happens rarely in adulthood.)

      While manipulating play dough is fun and easy for 2-year-olds, the shapeless sludge is hard for robots to handle. Machines have become increasingly reliable with rigid objects, but manipulating soft, deformable objects comes with a laundry list of technical challenges, and most importantly, as with most flexible structures, if you move one part, you’re likely affecting everything else. 

      Scientists from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and Stanford University recently let robots take their hand at playing with the modeling compound, but not for nostalgia’s sake. Their new system learns directly from visual inputs to let a robot with a two-fingered gripper see, simulate, and shape doughy objects. “RoboCraft” could reliably plan a robot’s behavior to pinch and release play dough to make various letters, including ones it had never seen. With just 10 minutes of data, the two-finger gripper rivaled human counterparts that teleoperated the machine — performing on-par, and at times even better, on the tested tasks. 

      “Modeling and manipulating objects with high degrees of freedom are essential capabilities for robots to learn how to enable complex industrial and household interaction tasks, like stuffing dumplings, rolling sushi, and making pottery,” says Yunzhu Li, CSAIL PhD student and author on a new paper about RoboCraft. “While there’s been recent advances in manipulating clothes and ropes, we found that objects with high plasticity, like dough or plasticine — despite ubiquity in those household and industrial settings — was a largely underexplored territory. With RoboCraft, we learn the dynamics models directly from high-dimensional sensory data, which offers a promising data-driven avenue for us to perform effective planning.” 

      Play video

      With undefined, smooth material, the whole structure needs to be accounted for before you can do any type of efficient and effective modeling and planning. By turning the images into graphs of little particles, coupled with algorithms, RoboCraft, using a graph neural network as the dynamics model, makes more accurate predictions about the material’s change of shapes. 

      Typically, researchers have used complex physics simulators to model and understand force and dynamics being applied to objects, but RoboCraft simply uses visual data. The inner-workings of the system relies on three parts to shape soft material into, say, an “R.” 

      The first part — perception — is all about learning to “see.” It uses cameras to collect raw, visual sensor data from the environment, which are then turned into little clouds of particles to represent the shapes. A graph-based neural network then uses said particle data to learn to “simulate” the object’s dynamics, or how it moves. Then, algorithms help plan the robot’s behavior so it learns to “shape” a blob of dough, armed with the training data from the many pinches. While the letters are a bit loose, they’re indubitably representative. 

      Besides cutesy shapes, the team is (actually) working on making dumplings from dough and a prepared filling. Right now, with just a two finger gripper, it’s a big ask. RoboCraft would need additional tools (a baker needs multiple tools to cook; so do robots) — a rolling pin, a stamp, and a mold. 

      A more far in the future domain the scientists envision is using RoboCraft for assistance with household tasks and chores, which could be of particular help to the elderly or those with limited mobility. To accomplish this, given the many obstructions that could take place, a much more adaptive representation of the dough or item would be needed, and as well as exploration into what class of models might be suitable to capture the underlying structural systems. 

      “RoboCraft essentially demonstrates that this predictive model can be learned in very data-efficient ways to plan motion. In the long run, we are thinking about using various tools to manipulate materials,” says Li. “If you think about dumpling or dough making, just one gripper wouldn’t be able to solve it. Helping the model understand and accomplish longer-horizon planning tasks, such as, how the dough will deform given the current tool, movements and actions, is a next step for future work.” 

      Li wrote the paper alongside Haochen Shi, Stanford master’s student; Huazhe Xu, Stanford postdoc; Zhiao Huang, PhD student at the University of California at San Diego; and Jiajun Wu, assistant professor at Stanford. They will present the research at the Robotics: Science and Systems conference in New York City. The work is in part supported by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI), the Samsung Global Research Outreach (GRO) Program, the Toyota Research Institute (TRI), and Amazon, Autodesk, Salesforce, and Bosch. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Hallucinating to better text translation

      by

      As babies, we babble and imitate our way to learning languages. We don’t start off reading raw text, which requires fundamental knowledge and understanding about the world, as well as the advanced ability to interpret and infer descriptions and relationships. Rather, humans begin our language journey slowly, by pointing and interacting with our environment, basing our words and perceiving their meaning through the context of the physical and social world. Eventually, we can craft full sentences to communicate complex ideas.

      Similarly, when humans begin learning and translating into another language, the incorporation of other sensory information, like multimedia, paired with the new and unfamiliar words, like flashcards with images, improves language acquisition and retention. Then, with enough practice, humans can accurately translate new, unseen sentences in context without the accompanying media; however, imagining a picture based on the original text helps.

      This is the basis of a new machine learning model, called VALHALLA, by researchers from MIT, IBM, and the University of California at San Diego, in which a trained neural network sees a source sentence in one language, hallucinates an image of what it looks like, and then uses both to translate into a target language. The team found that their method demonstrates improved accuracy of machine translation over text-only translation. Further, it provided an additional boost for cases with long sentences, under-resourced languages, and instances where part of the source sentence is inaccessible to the machine translator.

      As a core task within the AI field of natural language processing (NLP), machine translation is an “eminently practical technology that’s being used by millions of people every day,” says study co-author Yoon Kim, assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science with affiliations in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. With recent, significant advances in deep learning, “there’s been an interesting development in how one might use non-text information — for example, images, audio, or other grounding information — to tackle practical tasks involving language” says Kim, because “when humans are performing language processing tasks, we’re doing so within a grounded, situated world.” The pairing of hallucinated images and text during inference, the team postulated, imitates that process, providing context for improved performance over current state-of-the-art techniques, which utilize text-only data.

      This research will be presented at the IEEE / CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference this month. Kim’s co-authors are UC San Diego graduate student Yi Li and Professor Nuno Vasconcelos, along with research staff members Rameswar Panda, Chun-fu “Richard” Chen, Rogerio Feris, and IBM Director David Cox of IBM Research and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

      Learning to hallucinate from images

      When we learn new languages and to translate, we’re often provided with examples and practice before venturing out on our own. The same is true for machine-translation systems; however, if images are used during training, these AI methods also require visual aids for testing, limiting their applicability, says Panda.

      “In real-world scenarios, you might not have an image with respect to the source sentence. So, our motivation was basically: Instead of using an external image during inference as input, can we use visual hallucination — the ability to imagine visual scenes — to improve machine translation systems?” says Panda.

      To do this, the team used an encoder-decoder architecture with two transformers, a type of neural network model that’s suited for sequence-dependent data, like language, that can pay attention key words and semantics of a sentence. One transformer generates a visual hallucination, and the other performs multimodal translation using outputs from the first transformer.

      During training, there are two streams of translation: a source sentence and a ground-truth image that is paired with it, and the same source sentence that is visually hallucinated to make a text-image pair. First the ground-truth image and sentence are tokenized into representations that can be handled by transformers; for the case of the sentence, each word is a token. The source sentence is tokenized again, but this time passed through the visual hallucination transformer, outputting a hallucination, a discrete image representation of the sentence. The researchers incorporated an autoregression that compares the ground-truth and hallucinated representations for congruency — e.g., homonyms: a reference to an animal “bat” isn’t hallucinated as a baseball bat. The hallucination transformer then uses the difference between them to optimize its predictions and visual output, making sure the context is consistent.

      The two sets of tokens are then simultaneously passed through the multimodal translation transformer, each containing the sentence representation and either the hallucinated or ground-truth image. The tokenized text translation outputs are compared with the goal of being similar to each other and to the target sentence in another language. Any differences are then relayed back to the translation transformer for further optimization.

      For testing, the ground-truth image stream drops off, since images likely wouldn’t be available in everyday scenarios.

      “To the best of our knowledge, we haven’t seen any work which actually uses a hallucination transformer jointly with a multimodal translation system to improve machine translation performance,” says Panda.

      Visualizing the target text

      To test their method, the team put VALHALLA up against other state-of-the-art multimodal and text-only translation methods. They used public benchmark datasets containing ground-truth images with source sentences, and a dataset for translating text-only news articles. The researchers measured its performance over 13 tasks, ranging from translation on well-resourced languages (like English, German, and French), under-resourced languages (like English to Romanian) and non-English (like Spanish to French). The group also tested varying transformer model sizes, how accuracy changes with the sentence length, and translation under limited textual context, where portions of the text were hidden from the machine translators.

      The team observed significant improvements over text-only translation methods, improving data efficiency, and that smaller models performed better than the larger base model. As sentences became longer, VALHALLA’s performance over other methods grew, which the researchers attributed to the addition of more ambiguous words. In cases where part of the sentence was masked, VALHALLA could recover and translate the original text, which the team found surprising.

      Further unexpected findings arose: “Where there weren’t as many training [image and] text pairs, [like for under-resourced languages], improvements were more significant, which indicates that grounding in images helps in low-data regimes,” says Kim. “Another thing that was quite surprising to me was this improved performance, even on types of text that aren’t necessarily easily connectable to images. For example, maybe it’s not so surprising if this helps in translating visually salient sentences, like the ‘there is a red car in front of the house.’ [However], even in text-only [news article] domains, the approach was able to improve upon text-only systems.”

      While VALHALLA performs well, the researchers note that it does have limitations, requiring pairs of sentences to be annotated with an image, which could make it more expensive to obtain. It also performs better in its ground domain and not the text-only news articles. Moreover, Kim and Panda note, a technique like VALHALLA is still a black box, with the assumption that hallucinated images are providing helpful information, and the team plans to investigate what and how the model is learning in order to validate their methods.

      In the future, the team plans to explore other means of improving translation. “Here, we only focus on images, but there are other types of a multimodal information — for example, speech, video or touch, or other sensory modalities,” says Panda. “We believe such multimodal grounding can lead to even more efficient machine translation models, potentially benefiting translation across many low-resource languages spoken in the world.”

      This research was supported, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and the National Science Foundation. More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      In bias we trust?

      by

      When the stakes are high, machine-learning models are sometimes used to aid human decision-makers. For instance, a model could predict which law school applicants are most likely to pass the bar exam to help an admissions officer determine which students should be accepted.

      These models often have millions of parameters, so how they make predictions is nearly impossible for researchers to fully understand, let alone an admissions officer with no machine-learning experience. Researchers sometimes employ explanation methods that mimic a larger model by creating simple approximations of its predictions. These approximations, which are far easier to understand, help users determine whether to trust the model’s predictions.

      But are these explanation methods fair? If an explanation method provides better approximations for men than for women, or for white people than for Black people, it may encourage users to trust the model’s predictions for some people but not for others.

      MIT researchers took a hard look at the fairness of some widely used explanation methods. They found that the approximation quality of these explanations can vary dramatically between subgroups and that the quality is often significantly lower for minoritized subgroups.

      In practice, this means that if the approximation quality is lower for female applicants, there is a mismatch between the explanations and the model’s predictions that could lead the admissions officer to wrongly reject more women than men.

      Once the MIT researchers saw how pervasive these fairness gaps are, they tried several techniques to level the playing field. They were able to shrink some gaps, but couldn’t eradicate them.

      “What this means in the real-world is that people might incorrectly trust predictions more for some subgroups than for others. So, improving explanation models is important, but communicating the details of these models to end users is equally important. These gaps exist, so users may want to adjust their expectations as to what they are getting when they use these explanations,” says lead author Aparna Balagopalan, a graduate student in the Healthy ML group of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

      Balagopalan wrote the paper with CSAIL graduate students Haoran Zhang and Kimia Hamidieh; CSAIL postdoc Thomas Hartvigsen; Frank Rudzicz, associate professor of computer science at the University of Toronto; and senior author Marzyeh Ghassemi, an assistant professor and head of the Healthy ML Group. The research will be presented at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.

      High fidelity

      Simplified explanation models can approximate predictions of a more complex machine-learning model in a way that humans can grasp. An effective explanation model maximizes a property known as fidelity, which measures how well it matches the larger model’s predictions.

      Rather than focusing on average fidelity for the overall explanation model, the MIT researchers studied fidelity for subgroups of people in the model’s dataset. In a dataset with men and women, the fidelity should be very similar for each group, and both groups should have fidelity close to that of the overall explanation model.

      “When you are just looking at the average fidelity across all instances, you might be missing out on artifacts that could exist in the explanation model,” Balagopalan says.

      They developed two metrics to measure fidelity gaps, or disparities in fidelity between subgroups. One is the difference between the average fidelity across the entire explanation model and the fidelity for the worst-performing subgroup. The second calculates the absolute difference in fidelity between all possible pairs of subgroups and then computes the average.

      With these metrics, they searched for fidelity gaps using two types of explanation models that were trained on four real-world datasets for high-stakes situations, such as predicting whether a patient dies in the ICU, whether a defendant reoffends, or whether a law school applicant will pass the bar exam. Each dataset contained protected attributes, like the sex and race of individual people. Protected attributes are features that may not be used for decisions, often due to laws or organizational policies. The definition for these can vary based on the task specific to each decision setting.

      The researchers found clear fidelity gaps for all datasets and explanation models. The fidelity for disadvantaged groups was often much lower, up to 21 percent in some instances. The law school dataset had a fidelity gap of 7 percent between race subgroups, meaning the approximations for some subgroups were wrong 7 percent more often on average. If there are 10,000 applicants from these subgroups in the dataset, for example, a significant portion could be wrongly rejected, Balagopalan explains.

      “I was surprised by how pervasive these fidelity gaps are in all the datasets we evaluated. It is hard to overemphasize how commonly explanations are used as a ‘fix’ for black-box machine-learning models. In this paper, we are showing that the explanation methods themselves are imperfect approximations that may be worse for some subgroups,” says Ghassemi.

      Narrowing the gaps

      After identifying fidelity gaps, the researchers tried some machine-learning approaches to fix them. They trained the explanation models to identify regions of a dataset that could be prone to low fidelity and then focus more on those samples. They also tried using balanced datasets with an equal number of samples from all subgroups.

      These robust training strategies did reduce some fidelity gaps, but they didn’t eliminate them.

      The researchers then modified the explanation models to explore why fidelity gaps occur in the first place. Their analysis revealed that an explanation model might indirectly use protected group information, like sex or race, that it could learn from the dataset, even if group labels are hidden.

      They want to explore this conundrum more in future work. They also plan to further study the implications of fidelity gaps in the context of real-world decision making.

      Balagopalan is excited to see that concurrent work on explanation fairness from an independent lab has arrived at similar conclusions, highlighting the importance of understanding this problem well.

      As she looks to the next phase in this research, she has some words of warning for machine-learning users.

      “Choose the explanation model carefully. But even more importantly, think carefully about the goals of using an explanation model and who it eventually affects,” she says.

      This work was funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the Quanta Research Institute, a Canadian Institute for Advanced Research AI Chair, and Microsoft Research. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Emery Brown wins a share of 2022 Gruber Neuroscience Prize

      by

      The Gruber Foundation announced on May 17 that Emery N. Brown, the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical Engineering and Computational Neuroscience at MIT, has won the 2022 Gruber Neuroscience Prize along with neurophysicists Laurence Abbott of Columbia University, Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and Haim Sompolinsky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

      The foundation says it honored the four recipients for their influential contributions to the fields of computational and theoretical neuroscience. As datasets have grown ever larger and more complex, these fields have increasingly helped scientists unravel the mysteries of how the brain functions in both health and disease. The prize, which includes a total $500,000 award, will be presented in San Diego, California, on Nov. 13 at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.

      “These four remarkable scientists have applied their expertise in mathematical and statistical analysis, physics, and machine learning to create theories, mathematical models, and tools that have greatly advanced how we study and understand the brain,” says Joshua Sanes, professor of molecular and cellular biology and founding director of the Center for Brain Science at Harvard University and member of the selection advisory board to the prize. “Their insights and research have not only transformed how experimental neuroscientists do their research, but also are leading to promising new ways of providing clinical care.”

      Brown, who is an investigator in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science at MIT, an anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “It is a pleasant surprise and tremendous honor to be named a co-recipient of the 2022 Gruber Prize in Neuroscience. I am especially honored to share this award with three luminaries in computational and theoretical neuroscience.”

      Brown’s early groundbreaking findings in neuroscience included a novel algorithm that decodes the position of an animal by observing the activity of a small group of place cells in the animal’s brain, a discovery he made while working with fellow Picower Institute investigator Matt Wilson in the 1990s. The resulting state-space algorithm for point processes not only offered much better decoding with fewer neurons than previous approaches, but it also established a new framework for specifying dynamically the relationship between the spike trains (the timing sequence of firing neurons) in the brain and factors from the outside world.

      “One of the basic questions at the time was whether an animal holds a representation of where it is in its mind — in the hippocampus,” Brown says. “We were able to show that it did, and we could show that with only 30 neurons.”

      After introducing this state-space paradigm to neuroscience, Brown went on to refine the original idea and apply it to other dynamic situations — to simultaneously track neural activity and learning, for example, and to define with precision anesthesia-induced loss of consciousness, as well as its subsequent recovery. In the early 2000s, Brown put together a team to specifically study anesthesia’s effects on the brain.

      Through experimental research and mathematical modeling, Brown and his team showed that the altered arousal states produced by the main classes of anesthesia medications can be characterized by analyzing the oscillatory patterns observed in the EEG along with the locations of their molecular targets, and the anatomy and physiology of the neural circuits that connect those locations. He has established, including in recent papers with Picower Professor Earl K. Miller, that a principal way in which anesthetics produce unconsciousness is by producing oscillations that impair how different brain regions communicate with each other.

      The result of Brown’s research has been a new paradigm for brain monitoring during general anesthesia for surgery, one that allows an anesthesiologist to dose the patient based on EEG readouts (neural oscillations) of the patient’s anesthetic state rather than purely on vital sign responses. This pioneering approach promises to revolutionize how anesthesia medications are delivered to patients, and also shed light on other altered states of arousal such as sleep and coma.

      To advance that vision, Brown recently discussed how he is working to develop a new research center at MIT and MGH to further integrate anesthesiology with neuroscience research. The Brain Arousal State Control Innovation Center, he said, would not only advance anesthesiology care but also harness insights gained from anesthesiology research to improve other aspects of clinical neuroscience.

      “By demonstrating that physics and mathematics can make an enormous contribution to neuroscience, doctors Abbott, Brown, Sejnowski, and Sompolinsky have inspired an entire new generation of physicists and other quantitative scientists to follow in their footsteps,” says Frances Jensen, professor and chair of the Department of Neurology and co-director of the Penn Medicine Translational Neuroscience Center within the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and chair of the Selection Advisory Board to the prize. “The ramifications for neuroscience have been broad and profound. It is a great pleasure to be honoring each of them with this prestigious award.”

      This report was adapted from materials provided by the Gruber Foundation. More