More stories

  • in

    Estimating the informativeness of data

    Not all data are created equal. But how much information is any piece of data likely to contain? This question is central to medical testing, designing scientific experiments, and even to everyday human learning and thinking. MIT researchers have developed a new way to solve this problem, opening up new applications in medicine, scientific discovery, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence.

    In theory, the 1948 paper, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” by the late MIT Professor Emeritus Claude Shannon answered this question definitively. One of Shannon’s breakthrough results is the idea of entropy, which lets us quantify the amount of information inherent in any random object, including random variables that model observed data. Shannon’s results created the foundations of information theory and modern telecommunications. The concept of entropy has also proven central to computer science and machine learning.

    The challenge of estimating entropy

    Unfortunately, the use of Shannon’s formula can quickly become computationally intractable. It requires precisely calculating the probability of the data, which in turn requires calculating every possible way the data could have arisen under a probabilistic model. If the data-generating process is very simple — for example, a single toss of a coin or roll of a loaded die — then calculating entropies is straightforward. But consider the problem of medical testing, where a positive test result is the result of hundreds of interacting variables, all unknown. With just 10 unknowns, there are already 1,000 possible explanations for the data. With a few hundred, there are more possible explanations than atoms in the known universe, which makes calculating the entropy exactly an unmanageable problem.

    MIT researchers have developed a new method to estimate good approximations to many information quantities such as Shannon entropy by using probabilistic inference. The work appears in a paper presented at AISTATS 2022 by authors Feras Saad ’16, MEng ’16, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering and computer science; Marco-Cusumano Towner PhD ’21; and Vikash Mansinghka ’05, MEng ’09, PhD ’09, a principal research scientist in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. The key insight is, rather than enumerate all explanations, to instead use probabilistic inference algorithms to first infer which explanations are probable and then use these probable explanations to construct high-quality entropy estimates. The paper shows that this inference-based approach can be much faster and more accurate than previous approaches.

    Estimating entropy and information in a probabilistic model is fundamentally hard because it often requires solving a high-dimensional integration problem. Many previous works have developed estimators of these quantities for certain special cases, but the new estimators of entropy via inference (EEVI) offer the first approach that can deliver sharp upper and lower bounds on a broad set of information-theoretic quantities. An upper and lower bound means that although we don’t know the true entropy, we can get a number that is smaller than it and a number that is higher than it.

    “The upper and lower bounds on entropy delivered by our method are particularly useful for three reasons,” says Saad. “First, the difference between the upper and lower bounds gives a quantitative sense of how confident we should be about the estimates. Second, by using more computational effort we can drive the difference between the two bounds to zero, which ‘squeezes’ the true value with a high degree of accuracy. Third, we can compose these bounds to form estimates of many other quantities that tell us how informative different variables in a model are of one another.”

    Solving fundamental problems with data-driven expert systems

    Saad says he is most excited about the possibility that this method gives for querying probabilistic models in areas like machine-assisted medical diagnoses. He says one goal of the EEVI method is to be able to solve new queries using rich generative models for things like liver disease and diabetes that have already been developed by experts in the medical domain. For example, suppose we have a patient with a set of observed attributes (height, weight, age, etc.) and observed symptoms (nausea, blood pressure, etc.). Given these attributes and symptoms, EEVI can be used to help determine which medical tests for symptoms the physician should conduct to maximize information about the absence or presence of a given liver disease (like cirrhosis or primary biliary cholangitis).

    For insulin diagnosis, the authors showed how to use the method for computing optimal times to take blood glucose measurements that maximize information about a patient’s insulin sensitivity, given an expert-built probabilistic model of insulin metabolism and the patient’s personalized meal and medication schedule. As routine medical tracking like glucose monitoring moves away from doctor’s offices and toward wearable devices, there are even more opportunities to improve data acquisition, if the value of the data can be estimated accurately in advance.

    Vikash Mansinghka, senior author on the paper, adds, “We’ve shown that probabilistic inference algorithms can be used to estimate rigorous bounds on information measures that AI engineers often think of as intractable to calculate. This opens up many new applications. It also shows that inference may be more computationally fundamental than we thought. It also helps to explain how human minds might be able to estimate the value of information so pervasively, as a central building block of everyday cognition, and help us engineer AI expert systems that have these capabilities.”

    The paper, “Estimators of Entropy and Information via Inference in Probabilistic Models,” was presented at AISTATS 2022. More

  • in

    Emery Brown earns American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering Pierre Galletti Award

    The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering has awarded its highest honor this year to Emery N. Brown, the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Health Sciences and Technology in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science at MIT.

    Brown, who is also an anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Warren M. Zapol Professor at Harvard Medical School, received the 2022 Pierre M. Galletti Award during the national organization’s Annual Event held on March 25.

    For decades, Brown’s lab has uniquely unified three fields: neuroscience, statistics, and anesthesiology. He is renowned for the development of statistical methods and signal-processing algorithms to enable and improve analysis of neural activity measurements. The work has had numerous applications including studies of learning and memory, brain-computer interfaces, and systems neuroscience. He has also pioneered investigations of how general anesthetic drugs work in the brain to induce and maintain simultaneous but reversible states of unconsciousness, amnesia, immobility, and analgesia. Building on these improvements in fundamental understanding, his lab engineers systems to improve monitoring of patient state and anesthetic dosing during surgery. Optimizing doses of general anesthetic drugs can improve patient care in many ways, including by minimizing side effects such as post-operative delirium and by improving post-operative pain management.

    AIMBE said Brown earned the award in recognition of his “significant contributions to neuroscience data analysis and for characterizing the neurophysiology of anesthesia-induced unconsciousness and demonstrating how it can be reliably monitored in real time using electroencephalogram recordings.”

    Brown, who is also a faculty member in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, is now working to develop a research center at MIT dedicated to taking neuroscience-based approaches to advance anesthesiology.

    “I am extremely honored and grateful to the AIMBE for choosing me to receive the 2022 Galletti Award in recognition of my research deciphering the neuroscience of how anesthetics work,” he says. “I would like to express my gratitude to my collaborators, post-doctoral fellows, students, research assistants, and clinical coordinators who have made this possible.” More

  • in

    Generating new molecules with graph grammar

    Chemical engineers and materials scientists are constantly looking for the next revolutionary material, chemical, and drug. The rise of machine-learning approaches is expediting the discovery process, which could otherwise take years. “Ideally, the goal is to train a machine-learning model on a few existing chemical samples and then allow it to produce as many manufacturable molecules of the same class as possible, with predictable physical properties,” says Wojciech Matusik, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. “If you have all these components, you can build new molecules with optimal properties, and you also know how to synthesize them. That’s the overall vision that people in that space want to achieve”

    However, current techniques, mainly deep learning, require extensive datasets for training models, and many class-specific chemical datasets contain a handful of example compounds, limiting their ability to generalize and generate physical molecules that could be created in the real world.

    Now, a new paper from researchers at MIT and IBM tackles this problem using a generative graph model to build new synthesizable molecules within the same chemical class as their training data. To do this, they treat the formation of atoms and chemical bonds as a graph and develop a graph grammar — a linguistics analogy of systems and structures for word ordering — that contains a sequence of rules for building molecules, such as monomers and polymers. Using the grammar and production rules that were inferred from the training set, the model can not only reverse engineer its examples, but can create new compounds in a systematic and data-efficient way. “We basically built a language for creating molecules,” says Matusik “This grammar essentially is the generative model.”

    Matusik’s co-authors include MIT graduate students Minghao Guo, who is the lead author, and Beichen Li as well as Veronika Thost, Payal Das, and Jie Chen, research staff members with IBM Research. Matusik, Thost, and Chen are affiliated with the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. Their method, which they’ve called data-efficient graph grammar (DEG), will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

    “We want to use this grammar representation for monomer and polymer generation, because this grammar is explainable and expressive,” says Guo. “With only a few number of the production rules, we can generate many kinds of structures.”

    A molecular structure can be thought of as a symbolic representation in a graph — a string of atoms (nodes) joined together by chemical bonds (edges). In this method, the researchers allow the model to take the chemical structure and collapse a substructure of the molecule down to one node; this may be two atoms connected by a bond, a short sequence of bonded atoms, or a ring of atoms. This is done repeatedly, creating the production rules as it goes, until a single node remains. The rules and grammar then could be applied in the reverse order to recreate the training set from scratch or combined in different combinations to produce new molecules of the same chemical class.

    “Existing graph generation methods would produce one node or one edge sequentially at a time, but we are looking at higher-level structures and, specifically, exploiting chemistry knowledge, so that we don’t treat the individual atoms and bonds as the unit. This simplifies the generation process and also makes it more data-efficient to learn,” says Chen.

    Further, the researchers optimized the technique so that the bottom-up grammar was relatively simple and straightforward, such that it fabricated molecules that could be made.

    “If we switch the order of applying these production rules, we would get another molecule; what’s more, we can enumerate all the possibilities and generate tons of them,” says Chen. “Some of these molecules are valid and some of them not, so the learning of the grammar itself is actually to figure out a minimal collection of production rules, such that the percentage of molecules that can actually be synthesized is maximized.” While the researchers concentrated on three training sets of less than 33 samples each — acrylates, chain extenders, and isocyanates — they note that the process could be applied to any chemical class.

    To see how their method performed, the researchers tested DEG against other state-of-the-art models and techniques, looking at percentages of chemically valid and unique molecules, diversity of those created, success rate of retrosynthesis, and percentage of molecules belonging to the training data’s monomer class.

    “We clearly show that, for the synthesizability and membership, our algorithm outperforms all the existing methods by a very large margin, while it’s comparable for some other widely-used metrics,” says Guo. Further, “what is amazing about our algorithm is that we only need about 0.15 percent of the original dataset to achieve very similar results compared to state-of-the-art approaches that train on tens of thousands of samples. Our algorithm can specifically handle the problem of data sparsity.”

    In the immediate future, the team plans to address scaling up this grammar learning process to be able to generate large graphs, as well as produce and identify chemicals with desired properties.

    Down the road, the researchers see many applications for the DEG method, as it’s adaptable beyond generating new chemical structures, the team points out. A graph is a very flexible representation, and many entities can be symbolized in this form — robots, vehicles, buildings, and electronic circuits, for example. “Essentially, our goal is to build up our grammar, so that our graphic representation can be widely used across many different domains,” says Guo, as “DEG can automate the design of novel entities and structures,” says Chen.

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

  • in

    Deep-learning technique predicts clinical treatment outcomes

    When it comes to treatment strategies for critically ill patients, clinicians want to be able to consider all their options and timing of administration, and make the optimal decision for their patients. While clinician experience and study has helped them to be successful in this effort, not all patients are the same, and treatment decisions at this crucial time could mean the difference between patient improvement and quick deterioration. Therefore, it would be helpful for doctors to be able to take a patient’s previous known health status and received treatments and use that to predict that patient’s health outcome under different treatment scenarios, in order to pick the best path.

    Now, a deep-learning technique, called G-Net, from researchers at MIT and IBM provides a window into causal counterfactual prediction, affording physicians the opportunity to explore how a patient might fare under different treatment plans. The foundation of G-Net is the g-computation algorithm, a causal inference method that estimates the effect of dynamic exposures in the presence of measured confounding variables — ones that may influence both treatments and outcomes. Unlike previous implementations of the g-computation framework, which have used linear modeling approaches, G-Net uses recurrent neural networks (RNN), which have node connections that allow them to better model temporal sequences with complex and nonlinear dynamics, like those found in the physiological and clinical time series data. In this way, physicians can develop alternative plans based on patient history and test them before making a decision.

    “Our ultimate goal is to develop a machine learning technique that would allow doctors to explore various ‘What if’ scenarios and treatment options,” says Li-wei Lehman, MIT research scientist in the MIT Institute for Medical Engineering and Science and an MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab project lead. “A lot of work has been done in terms of deep learning for counterfactual prediction but [it’s] been focusing on a point exposure setting,” or a static, time-varying treatment strategy, which doesn’t allow for adjustment of treatments as patient history changes. However, her team’s new prediction approach provides for treatment plan flexibility and chances for treatment alteration over time as patient covariate history and past treatments change. “G-Net is the first deep-learning approach based on g-computation that can predict both the population-level and individual-level treatment effects under dynamic and time varying treatment strategies.”

    The research, which was recently published in the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, was co-authored by Rui Li MEng ’20, Stephanie Hu MEng ’21, former MIT postdoc Mingyu Lu MD, graduate student Yuria Utsumi, IBM research staff member Prithwish Chakraborty, IBM Research director of Hybrid Cloud Services Daby Sow, IBM data scientist Piyush Madan, IBM research scientist Mohamed Ghalwash, and IBM research scientist Zach Shahn.

    Tracking disease progression

    To build, validate, and test G-Net’s predictive abilities, the researchers considered the circulatory system in septic patients in the ICU. During critical care, doctors need to make trade-offs and judgement calls, such as ensuring the organs are receiving adequate blood supply without overworking the heart. For this, they could give intravenous fluids to patients to increase blood pressure; however, too much can cause edema. Alternatively, physicians can administer vasopressors, which act to contract blood vessels and raise blood pressure.

    In order to mimic this and demonstrate G-Net’s proof-of-concept, the team used CVSim, a mechanistic model of a human cardiovascular system that’s governed by 28 input variables characterizing the system’s current state, such as arterial pressure, central venous pressure, total blood volume, and total peripheral resistance, and modified it to simulate various disease processes (e.g., sepsis or blood loss) and effects of interventions (e.g., fluids and vasopressors). The researchers used CVSim to generate observational patient data for training and for “ground truth” comparison against counterfactual prediction. In their G-Net architecture, the researchers ran two RNNs to handle and predict variables that are continuous, meaning they can take on a range of values, like blood pressure, and categorical variables, which have discrete values, like the presence or absence of pulmonary edema. The researchers simulated the health trajectories of thousands of “patients” exhibiting symptoms under one treatment regime, let’s say A, for 66 timesteps, and used them to train and validate their model.

    Testing G-Net’s prediction capability, the team generated two counterfactual datasets. Each contained roughly 1,000 known patient health trajectories, which were created from CVSim using the same “patient” condition as the starting point under treatment A. Then at timestep 33, treatment changed to plan B or C, depending on the dataset. The team then performed 100 prediction trajectories for each of these 1,000 patients, whose treatment and medical history was known up until timestep 33 when a new treatment was administered. In these cases, the prediction agreed well with the “ground-truth” observations for individual patients and averaged population-level trajectories.

    A cut above the rest

    Since the g-computation framework is flexible, the researchers wanted to examine G-Net’s prediction using different nonlinear models — in this case, long short-term memory (LSTM) models, which are a type of RNN that can learn from previous data patterns or sequences — against the more classical linear models and a multilayer perception model (MLP), a type of neural network that can make predictions using a nonlinear approach. Following a similar setup as before, the team found that the error between the known and predicted cases was smallest in the LSTM models compared to the others. Since G-Net is able to model the temporal patterns of the patient’s ICU history and past treatment, whereas a linear model and MLP cannot, it was better able to predict the patient’s outcome.

    The team also compared G-Net’s prediction in a static, time-varying treatment setting against two state-of-the-art deep-learning based counterfactual prediction approaches, a recurrent marginal structural network (rMSN) and a counterfactual recurrent neural network (CRN), as well as a linear model and an MLP. For this, they investigated a model for tumor growth under no treatment, radiation, chemotherapy, and both radiation and chemotherapy scenarios. “Imagine a scenario where there’s a patient with cancer, and an example of a static regime would be if you only give a fixed dosage of chemotherapy, radiation, or any kind of drug, and wait until the end of your trajectory,” comments Lu. For these investigations, the researchers generated simulated observational data using tumor volume as the primary influence dictating treatment plans and demonstrated that G-Net outperformed the other models. One potential reason could be because g-computation is known to be more statistically efficient than rMSN and CRN, when models are correctly specified.

    While G-Net has done well with simulated data, more needs to be done before it can be applied to real patients. Since neural networks can be thought of as “black boxes” for prediction results, the researchers are beginning to investigate the uncertainty in the model to help ensure safety. In contrast to these approaches that recommend an “optimal” treatment plan without any clinician involvement, “as a decision support tool, I believe that G-Net would be more interpretable, since the clinicians would input treatment strategies themselves,” says Lehman, and “G-Net will allow them to be able to explore different hypotheses.” Further, the team has moved on to using real data from ICU patients with sepsis, bringing it one step closer to implementation in hospitals.

    “I think it is pretty important and exciting for real-world applications,” says Hu. “It’d be helpful to have some way to predict whether or not a treatment might work or what the effects might be — a quicker iteration process for developing these hypotheses for what to try, before actually trying to implement them in in a years-long, potentially very involved and very invasive type of clinical trial.”

    This research was funded by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. More

  • in

    Professor Emery Brown has big plans for anesthesiology

    Emery N. Brown — the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical Engineering and of Computational Neuroscience at MIT, an MIT professor of health sciences and technology, an investigator with The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT, and the Warren M. Zapol Professor of Anaesthesia at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) — clearly excels at many roles. Renowned internationally for his anesthesia and neuroscience research, he embodies a unique blend of anesthesiologist, statistician, neuroscientist, educator, and mentor to both students and colleagues. Notably, Brown is one of the most decorated clinician-scientists in the country; he is one of only 25 people — and the first African-American, statistician, and anesthesiologist — to be elected to all three National Academies (Science, Engineering, and Medicine).

    Now, he is handing off one of his many key roles and responsibilities. After almost 10 years, Brown is stepping down as co-director of the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology (HST). He will turn his energies toward working to develop a new joint center between MIT and MGH that uses the study of anesthesia to design novel approaches to controlling brain states. While a goal of the new center will be to improve anesthesia and intensive care unit management, according to Brown, it will also study related problems such as treating depression, insomnia, and epilepsy, as well as enhancing coma recovery.

    Founded in 1970, HST is one of the oldest interdisciplinary educational programs focused on training the next generation of clinician-scientists and engineers, who learn to translate science, engineering, and medical research into clinical practice, with the aim of improving human health. The MIT Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES), where Brown is associate director, is HST’s home at MIT. Brown was the first HST co-director after the establishment of IMES in 2012; Wolfram Goessling is the Harvard University co-director of HST.

    “Emery has been an exemplary leader for HST during his tenure, and has helped it become a hub for the training of world-class scientists, engineers, and clinicians,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, dean of the MIT School of Engineering and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “I am deeply grateful for his many years of service and wish him well as he moves on to new endeavors.”

    Elazer R. Edelman, director of IMES, calls Brown “a phenom who has been dedicated to our programs for years.”

    “With his thoughtful leadership and understated style, Emery made many contributions to the HST community,” Edelman continues. “On a personal note, this is bittersweet for me, as Emery has been a partner and mentor in my role as IMES director. And while I know that he will always be there for me, as he has been for all of us at IMES and HST, I will miss our late-night calls and midday conferences on matters of import for MIT, IMES, and HST.”

    Brown says “it was an honor and a privilege to co-direct HST with Wolfram.”

    “The students, staff, and faculty are simply amazing,” Brown continues. “Although, now more than 50 years old, HST remains at the vanguard for training PhD and MD students to work at the intersection between engineering, science, and medicine.”

    Goessling also thanks Brown for his leadership: “I truly valued Emery’s partnership and friendship, working together to deepen ties between the MIT and Harvard sides of HST. I am particularly grateful for working with Emery on our combined diversity efforts, leading to the HST Diversity Ambassadors initiative that made HST a better and stronger program.”

    According to Edelman, Brown was instrumental in the transition to new paradigms and relationships with HMS in the context of IMES. In 2014, he led the establishment of clear criteria for HST faculty membership, thereby strengthening the community of faculty experts who train students and provide research opportunities. More recently, he provided guidance through the turmoil of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, including the transition to online instruction and the return to the classroom. And Brown has always been a strong supporter of student diversity efforts, serving as an advocate and advisor to HST students.

    Brown holds BA, MA, and PhD degrees from Harvard University, and an MD from Harvard Medical School. He has been recognized with many awards, including the 2020 Swartz Prize in Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience, the 2018 Dickson Prize in Science, and an NIH Director’s Pioneer Award. Brown also served on President Barack Obama’s BRAIN Initiative Working Group. Among his many accomplishments, he has been cited for developing neural signal processing algorithms to characterize how neural systems represent and transmit information, and for unlocking the neurophysiology of how anesthetics produce the states of general anesthesia.

    Edelman says the process is underway to name a successor to Brown as co-director of HST at MIT. More

  • in

    The downside of machine learning in health care

    While working toward her dissertation in computer science at MIT, Marzyeh Ghassemi wrote several papers on how machine-learning techniques from artificial intelligence could be applied to clinical data in order to predict patient outcomes. “It wasn’t until the end of my PhD work that one of my committee members asked: ‘Did you ever check to see how well your model worked across different groups of people?’”

    That question was eye-opening for Ghassemi, who had previously assessed the performance of models in aggregate, across all patients. Upon a closer look, she saw that models often worked differently — specifically worse — for populations including Black women, a revelation that took her by surprise. “I hadn’t made the connection beforehand that health disparities would translate directly to model disparities,” she says. “And given that I am a visible minority woman-identifying computer scientist at MIT, I am reasonably certain that many others weren’t aware of this either.”

    In a paper published Jan. 14 in the journal Patterns, Ghassemi — who earned her doctorate in 2017 and is now an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the MIT Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES) — and her coauthor, Elaine Okanyene Nsoesie of Boston University, offer a cautionary note about the prospects for AI in medicine. “If used carefully, this technology could improve performance in health care and potentially reduce inequities,” Ghassemi says. “But if we’re not actually careful, technology could worsen care.”

    It all comes down to data, given that the AI tools in question train themselves by processing and analyzing vast quantities of data. But the data they are given are produced by humans, who are fallible and whose judgments may be clouded by the fact that they interact differently with patients depending on their age, gender, and race, without even knowing it.

    Furthermore, there is still great uncertainty about medical conditions themselves. “Doctors trained at the same medical school for 10 years can, and often do, disagree about a patient’s diagnosis,” Ghassemi says. That’s different from the applications where existing machine-learning algorithms excel — like object-recognition tasks — because practically everyone in the world will agree that a dog is, in fact, a dog.

    Machine-learning algorithms have also fared well in mastering games like chess and Go, where both the rules and the “win conditions” are clearly defined. Physicians, however, don’t always concur on the rules for treating patients, and even the win condition of being “healthy” is not widely agreed upon. “Doctors know what it means to be sick,” Ghassemi explains, “and we have the most data for people when they are sickest. But we don’t get much data from people when they are healthy because they’re less likely to see doctors then.”

    Even mechanical devices can contribute to flawed data and disparities in treatment. Pulse oximeters, for example, which have been calibrated predominately on light-skinned individuals, do not accurately measure blood oxygen levels for people with darker skin. And these deficiencies are most acute when oxygen levels are low — precisely when accurate readings are most urgent. Similarly, women face increased risks during “metal-on-metal” hip replacements, Ghassemi and Nsoesie write, “due in part to anatomic differences that aren’t taken into account in implant design.” Facts like these could be buried within the data fed to computer models whose output will be undermined as a result.

    Coming from computers, the product of machine-learning algorithms offers “the sheen of objectivity,” according to Ghassemi. But that can be deceptive and dangerous, because it’s harder to ferret out the faulty data supplied en masse to a computer than it is to discount the recommendations of a single possibly inept (and maybe even racist) doctor. “The problem is not machine learning itself,” she insists. “It’s people. Human caregivers generate bad data sometimes because they are not perfect.”

    Nevertheless, she still believes that machine learning can offer benefits in health care in terms of more efficient and fairer recommendations and practices. One key to realizing the promise of machine learning in health care is to improve the quality of data, which is no easy task. “Imagine if we could take data from doctors that have the best performance and share that with other doctors that have less training and experience,” Ghassemi says. “We really need to collect this data and audit it.”

    The challenge here is that the collection of data is not incentivized or rewarded, she notes. “It’s not easy to get a grant for that, or ask students to spend time on it. And data providers might say, ‘Why should I give my data out for free when I can sell it to a company for millions?’ But researchers should be able to access data without having to deal with questions like: ‘What paper will I get my name on in exchange for giving you access to data that sits at my institution?’

    “The only way to get better health care is to get better data,” Ghassemi says, “and the only way to get better data is to incentivize its release.”

    It’s not only a question of collecting data. There’s also the matter of who will collect it and vet it. Ghassemi recommends assembling diverse groups of researchers — clinicians, statisticians, medical ethicists, and computer scientists — to first gather diverse patient data and then “focus on developing fair and equitable improvements in health care that can be deployed in not just one advanced medical setting, but in a wide range of medical settings.”

    The objective of the Patterns paper is not to discourage technologists from bringing their expertise in machine learning to the medical world, she says. “They just need to be cognizant of the gaps that appear in treatment and other complexities that ought to be considered before giving their stamp of approval to a particular computer model.” More

  • in

    The promise and pitfalls of artificial intelligence explored at TEDxMIT event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • in

    Nonsense can make sense to machine-learning models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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