Research

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      To excel at engineering design, generative AI must learn to innovate, study finds

      by

      ChatGPT and other deep generative models are proving to be uncanny mimics. These AI supermodels can churn out poems, finish symphonies, and create new videos and images by automatically learning from millions of examples of previous works. These enormously powerful and versatile tools excel at generating new content that resembles everything they’ve seen before.

      But as MIT engineers say in a new study, similarity isn’t enough if you want to truly innovate in engineering tasks.

      “Deep generative models (DGMs) are very promising, but also inherently flawed,” says study author Lyle Regenwetter, a mechanical engineering graduate student at MIT. “The objective of these models is to mimic a dataset. But as engineers and designers, we often don’t want to create a design that’s already out there.”

      He and his colleagues make the case that if mechanical engineers want help from AI to generate novel ideas and designs, they will have to first refocus those models beyond “statistical similarity.”

      “The performance of a lot of these models is explicitly tied to how statistically similar a generated sample is to what the model has already seen,” says co-author Faez Ahmed, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. “But in design, being different could be important if you want to innovate.”

      In their study, Ahmed and Regenwetter reveal the pitfalls of deep generative models when they are tasked with solving engineering design problems. In a case study of bicycle frame design, the team shows that these models end up generating new frames that mimic previous designs but falter on engineering performance and requirements.

      When the researchers presented the same bicycle frame problem to DGMs that they specifically designed with engineering-focused objectives, rather than only statistical similarity, these models produced more innovative, higher-performing frames.

      The team’s results show that similarity-focused AI models don’t quite translate when applied to engineering problems. But, as the researchers also highlight in their study, with some careful planning of task-appropriate metrics, AI models could be an effective design “co-pilot.”

      “This is about how AI can help engineers be better and faster at creating innovative products,” Ahmed says. “To do that, we have to first understand the requirements. This is one step in that direction.”

      The team’s new study appeared recently online, and will be in the December print edition of the journal Computer Aided Design. The research is a collaboration between computer scientists at MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and mechanical engineers in MIT’s DeCoDe Lab. The study’s co-authors include Akash Srivastava and Dan Gutreund at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

      Framing a problem

      As Ahmed and Regenwetter write, DGMs are “powerful learners, boasting unparalleled ability” to process huge amounts of data. DGM is a broad term for any machine-learning model that is trained to learn distribution of data and then use that to generate new, statistically similar content. The enormously popular ChatGPT is one type of deep generative model known as a large language model, or LLM, which incorporates natural language processing capabilities into the model to enable the app to generate realistic imagery and speech in response to conversational queries. Other popular models for image generation include DALL-E and Stable Diffusion.

      Because of their ability to learn from data and generate realistic samples, DGMs have been increasingly applied in multiple engineering domains. Designers have used deep generative models to draft new aircraft frames, metamaterial designs, and optimal geometries for bridges and cars. But for the most part, the models have mimicked existing designs, without improving the performance on existing designs.

      “Designers who are working with DGMs are sort of missing this cherry on top, which is adjusting the model’s training objective to focus on the design requirements,” Regenwetter says. “So, people end up generating designs that are very similar to the dataset.”

      In the new study, he outlines the main pitfalls in applying DGMs to engineering tasks, and shows that the fundamental objective of standard DGMs does not take into account specific design requirements. To illustrate this, the team invokes a simple case of bicycle frame design and demonstrates that problems can crop up as early as the initial learning phase. As a model learns from thousands of existing bike frames of various sizes and shapes, it might consider two frames of similar dimensions to have similar performance, when in fact a small disconnect in one frame — too small to register as a significant difference in statistical similarity metrics — makes the frame much weaker than the other, visually similar frame.

      Beyond “vanilla”
      An animation depicting transformations across common bicycle designs. Credit: Courtesy of the researchers

      The researchers carried the bicycle example forward to see what designs a DGM would actually generate after having learned from existing designs. They first tested a conventional “vanilla” generative adversarial network, or GAN — a model that has widely been used in image and text synthesis, and is tuned simply to generate statistically similar content. They trained the model on a dataset of thousands of bicycle frames, including commercially manufactured designs and less conventional, one-off frames designed by hobbyists.

      Once the model learned from the data, the researchers asked it to generate hundreds of new bike frames. The model produced realistic designs that resembled existing frames. But none of the designs showed significant improvement in performance, and some were even a bit inferior, with heavier, less structurally sound frames.

      The team then carried out the same test with two other DGMs that were specifically designed for engineering tasks. The first model is one that Ahmed previously developed to generate high-performing airfoil designs. He built this model to prioritize statistical similarity as well as functional performance. When applied to the bike frame task, this model generated realistic designs that also were lighter and stronger than existing designs. But it also produced physically “invalid” frames, with components that didn’t quite fit or overlapped in physically impossible ways.

      “We saw designs that were significantly better than the dataset, but also designs that were geometrically incompatible because the model wasn’t focused on meeting design constraints,” Regenwetter says.

      The last model the team tested was one that Regenwetter built to generate new geometric structures. This model was designed with the same priorities as the previous models, with the added ingredient of design constraints, and prioritizing physically viable frames, for instance, with no disconnections or overlapping bars. This last model produced the highest-performing designs, that were also physically feasible.

      “We found that when a model goes beyond statistical similarity, it can come up with designs that are better than the ones that are already out there,” Ahmed says. “It’s a proof of what AI can do, if it is explicitly trained on a design task.”

      For instance, if DGMs can be built with other priorities, such as performance, design constraints, and novelty, Ahmed foresees “numerous engineering fields, such as molecular design and civil infrastructure, would greatly benefit. By shedding light on the potential pitfalls of relying solely on statistical similarity, we hope to inspire new pathways and strategies in generative AI applications outside multimedia.” More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A new way to integrate data with physical objects

      by

      To get a sense of what StructCode is all about, says Mustafa Doğa Doğan, think of Superman. Not the “faster than a speeding bullet” and “more powerful than a locomotive” version, but a Superman, or Superwoman, who sees the world differently from ordinary mortals — someone who can look around a room and glean all kinds of information about ordinary objects that is not apparent to people with less penetrating faculties.

      That, in a nutshell, is “the high-level idea behind StructCode,” explains Doğan, a PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT and an affiliate of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). “The goal is to change the way we interact with objects” — to make those interactions more meaningful and more meaning-laden — “by embedding information into objects in ways that can be readily accessed.”

      StructCode grew out of an effort called InfraredTags, which Doğan and other colleagues introduced in 2022. That work, as well as the current project, was carried out in the laboratory of MIT Associate Professor Stefanie Mueller — Doğan’s advisor, who has taken part in both projects. In last year’s approach, “invisible” tags — that can only be seen with cameras capable of detecting infrared light — were used to reveal information about physical objects. The drawback there was that many cameras cannot perceive infrared light. Moreover, the method for fabricating these objects and affixing the tags to their surfaces relied on 3D printers, which tend to be very slow and often can only make objects that are small.

      StructCode, at least in its original version, relies on objects produced with laser-cutting techniques that can be manufactured within minutes, rather than the hours it might take on a 3D printer. Information can be extracted from these objects, moreover, with the RGB cameras that are commonly found in smartphones; the ability to operate in the infrared range of the spectrum is not required.

      In their initial demonstrations of the idea, the MIT-led team decided to construct their objects out of wood, making pieces such as furniture, picture frames, flowerpots, or toys that are well suited to laser-cut fabrication. A key question that had to be resolved was this: How can information be stored in a way that is unobtrusive and durable, as compared to externally-attached bar codes and QR codes, and also will not undermine an object’s structural integrity?

      The solution that the team has come up with, for now, is to rely on joints, which are ubiquitous in wooden objects made out of more than one component. Perhaps the most familiar is the finger joint, which has a kind of zigzag pattern whereby two wooden pieces adjoin at right angles such that every protruding “finger” along the joint of the first piece fits into a corresponding “gap” in the joint of the second piece and, similarly, every gap in the joint of the first piece is filled with a finger from the second.

      “Joints have these repeating features, which are like repeating bits,” Dogan says. To create a code, the researchers slightly vary the length of the gaps or fingers. A standard size length is accorded a 1. A slightly shorter length is assigned a 0, and a slightly longer length is assigned a 2. The encoding scheme is based on the sequence of these numbers, or bits, that can be observed along a joint. For every string of four bits, there are 81 (34) possible variations.

      The team also demonstrated ways of encoding messages in “living hinges” — a kind of joint that is made by taking a flat, rigid piece of material and making it bendable by cutting a series of parallel, vertical lines. As with the finger joints, the distance between these lines can be varied: 1 being the standard length, 0 being a slightly shorter length, and 2 being slightly longer. And in this way, a code can be assembled from an object that contains a living hinge.

      The idea is described in a paper, “StructCode: Leveraging Fabrication Artifacts to Store Data in Laser-Cut Objects,” that was presented this month at the 2023 ACM Symposium on Computational Fabrication in New York City. Doğan, the paper’s first author, is joined by Mueller and four coauthors — recent MIT alumna Grace Tang ’23, MNG ’23; MIT undergraduate Richard Qi; University of California at Berkeley graduate student Vivian Hsinyueh Chan; and Cornell University Assistant Professor Thijs Roumen.

      “In the realm of materials and design, there is often an inclination to associate novelty and innovation with entirely new materials or manufacturing techniques,” notes Elvin Karana, a professor of materials innovation and design at the Delft University of Technology. One of the things that impresses Karana most about StructCode is that it provides a novel means of storing data by “applying a commonly used technique like laser cutting and a material as ubiquitous as wood.”

      The idea for StructCode, adds University of Colorado computer scientist Ellen Yi-Luen Do, “is “simple, elegant, and totally makes sense. It’s like having the Rosetta Stone to help decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs.”

      Patrick Baudisch, a computer scientist at the Hasso Plattner Institute in Germany, views StructCode as “a great step forward for personal fabrication. It takes a key piece of functionality that’s only offered today for mass-produced goods and brings it to custom objects.”

      Here, in brief, is how it works: First, a laser cutter — guided by a model created via StructCode — fabricates an object into which encoded information has been embedded. After downloading a StructCode app, an user can decode the hidden message by pointing a cellphone camera at the object, which can (aided by StructCode software) detect subtle variations in length found in an object’s outward-facing joints or living hinges.

      The process is even easier if the user is equipped with augmented reality glasses, Doğan says. “In that case, you don’t need to point a camera. The information comes up automatically.” And that can give people more of the “superpowers” that the designers of StructCode hope to confer.

      “The object doesn’t need to contain a lot of information,” Doğan adds. “Just enough — in the form of, say, URLs — to direct people to places they can find out what they need to know.”

      Users might be sent to a website where they can obtain information about the object — how to care for it, and perhaps eventually how to disassemble it and recycle (or safely dispose of) its contents. A flowerpot that was made with living hinges might inform a user, based on records that are maintained online, as to when the plant inside the pot was last watered and when it needs to be watered again. Children examining a toy crocodile could, through StructCode, learn scientific details about various parts of the animal’s anatomy. A picture frame made with finger joints modified by StructCode could help people find out about the painting inside the frame and about the person (or persons) who created the artwork — perhaps linking to a video of an artist talking about this work directly.

      “This technique could pave the way for new applications, such as interactive museum exhibits,” says Raf Ramakers, a computer scientist at Hasselt University in Belgium. “It holds the potential for broadening the scope of how we perceive and interact with everyday objects” — which is precisely the goal that motivates the work of Doğan and his colleagues.

      But StructCode is not the end of the line, as far as Doğan and his collaborators are concerned. The same general approach could be adapted to other manufacturing techniques besides laser cutting, and information storage doesn’t have to be confined to the joints of wooden objects. Data could be represented, for instance, in the texture of leather, within the pattern of woven or knitted pieces, or concealed by other means within an image. Doğan is excited by the breadth of available options and by the fact that their “explorations into this new realm of possibilities, designed to make objects and our world more interactive, are just beginning.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      AI copilot enhances human precision for safer aviation

      by

      Imagine you’re in an airplane with two pilots, one human and one computer. Both have their “hands” on the controllers, but they’re always looking out for different things. If they’re both paying attention to the same thing, the human gets to steer. But if the human gets distracted or misses something, the computer quickly takes over.

      Meet the Air-Guardian, a system developed by researchers at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). As modern pilots grapple with an onslaught of information from multiple monitors, especially during critical moments, Air-Guardian acts as a proactive copilot; a partnership between human and machine, rooted in understanding attention.

      But how does it determine attention, exactly? For humans, it uses eye-tracking, and for the neural system, it relies on something called “saliency maps,” which pinpoint where attention is directed. The maps serve as visual guides highlighting key regions within an image, aiding in grasping and deciphering the behavior of intricate algorithms. Air-Guardian identifies early signs of potential risks through these attention markers, instead of only intervening during safety breaches like traditional autopilot systems. 

      The broader implications of this system reach beyond aviation. Similar cooperative control mechanisms could one day be used in cars, drones, and a wider spectrum of robotics.

      “An exciting feature of our method is its differentiability,” says MIT CSAIL postdoc Lianhao Yin, a lead author on a new paper about Air-Guardian. “Our cooperative layer and the entire end-to-end process can be trained. We specifically chose the causal continuous-depth neural network model because of its dynamic features in mapping attention. Another unique aspect is adaptability. The Air-Guardian system isn’t rigid; it can be adjusted based on the situation’s demands, ensuring a balanced partnership between human and machine.”

      In field tests, both the pilot and the system made decisions based on the same raw images when navigating to the target waypoint. Air-Guardian’s success was gauged based on the cumulative rewards earned during flight and shorter path to the waypoint. The guardian reduced the risk level of flights and increased the success rate of navigating to target points. 

      “This system represents the innovative approach of human-centric AI-enabled aviation,” adds Ramin Hasani, MIT CSAIL research affiliate and inventor of liquid neural networks. “Our use of liquid neural networks provides a dynamic, adaptive approach, ensuring that the AI doesn’t merely replace human judgment but complements it, leading to enhanced safety and collaboration in the skies.”

      The true strength of Air-Guardian is its foundational technology. Using an optimization-based cooperative layer using visual attention from humans and machine, and liquid closed-form continuous-time neural networks (CfC) known for its prowess in deciphering cause-and-effect relationships, it analyzes incoming images for vital information. Complementing this is the VisualBackProp algorithm, which identifies the system’s focal points within an image, ensuring clear understanding of its attention maps. 

      For future mass adoption, there’s a need to refine the human-machine interface. Feedback suggests an indicator, like a bar, might be more intuitive to signify when the guardian system takes control.

      Air-Guardian heralds a new age of safer skies, offering a reliable safety net for those moments when human attention wavers.

      “The Air-Guardian system highlights the synergy between human expertise and machine learning, furthering the objective of using machine learning to augment pilots in challenging scenarios and reduce operational errors,” says Daniela Rus, the Andrew (1956) and Erna Viterbi Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, director of CSAIL, and senior author on the paper.”One of the most interesting outcomes of using a visual attention metric in this work is the potential for allowing earlier interventions and greater interpretability by human pilots,” says Stephanie Gil, assistant professor of computer science at Harvard University, who was not involved in the work. “This showcases a great example of how AI can be used to work with a human, lowering the barrier for achieving trust by using natural communication mechanisms between the human and the AI system.”

      This research was partially funded by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Research Laboratory, the USAF Artificial Intelligence Accelerator, the Boeing Co., and the Office of Naval Research. The findings don’t necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government or the USAF. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      A more effective experimental design for engineering a cell into a new state

      by

      A strategy for cellular reprogramming involves using targeted genetic interventions to engineer a cell into a new state. The technique holds great promise in immunotherapy, for instance, where researchers could reprogram a patient’s T-cells so they are more potent cancer killers. Someday, the approach could also help identify life-saving cancer treatments or regenerative therapies that repair disease-ravaged organs.

      But the human body has about 20,000 genes, and a genetic perturbation could be on a combination of genes or on any of the over 1,000 transcription factors that regulate the genes. Because the search space is vast and genetic experiments are costly, scientists often struggle to find the ideal perturbation for their particular application.   

      Researchers from MIT and Harvard University developed a new, computational approach that can efficiently identify optimal genetic perturbations based on a much smaller number of experiments than traditional methods.

      Their algorithmic technique leverages the cause-and-effect relationship between factors in a complex system, such as genome regulation, to prioritize the best intervention in each round of sequential experiments.

      The researchers conducted a rigorous theoretical analysis to determine that their technique did, indeed, identify optimal interventions. With that theoretical framework in place, they applied the algorithms to real biological data designed to mimic a cellular reprogramming experiment. Their algorithms were the most efficient and effective.

      “Too often, large-scale experiments are designed empirically. A careful causal framework for sequential experimentation may allow identifying optimal interventions with fewer trials, thereby reducing experimental costs,” says co-senior author Caroline Uhler, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) who is also co-director of the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and a researcher at MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and Institute for Data, Systems and Society (IDSS).

      Joining Uhler on the paper, which appears today in Nature Machine Intelligence, are lead author Jiaqi Zhang, a graduate student and Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center Fellow; co-senior author Themistoklis P. Sapsis, professor of mechanical and ocean engineering at MIT and a member of IDSS; and others at Harvard and MIT.

      Active learning

      When scientists try to design an effective intervention for a complex system, like in cellular reprogramming, they often perform experiments sequentially. Such settings are ideally suited for the use of a machine-learning approach called active learning. Data samples are collected and used to learn a model of the system that incorporates the knowledge gathered so far. From this model, an acquisition function is designed — an equation that evaluates all potential interventions and picks the best one to test in the next trial.

      This process is repeated until an optimal intervention is identified (or resources to fund subsequent experiments run out).

      “While there are several generic acquisition functions to sequentially design experiments, these are not effective for problems of such complexity, leading to very slow convergence,” Sapsis explains.

      Acquisition functions typically consider correlation between factors, such as which genes are co-expressed. But focusing only on correlation ignores the regulatory relationships or causal structure of the system. For instance, a genetic intervention can only affect the expression of downstream genes, but a correlation-based approach would not be able to distinguish between genes that are upstream or downstream.

      “You can learn some of this causal knowledge from the data and use that to design an intervention more efficiently,” Zhang explains.

      The MIT and Harvard researchers leveraged this underlying causal structure for their technique. First, they carefully constructed an algorithm so it can only learn models of the system that account for causal relationships.

      Then the researchers designed the acquisition function so it automatically evaluates interventions using information on these causal relationships. They crafted this function so it prioritizes the most informative interventions, meaning those most likely to lead to the optimal intervention in subsequent experiments.

      “By considering causal models instead of correlation-based models, we can already rule out certain interventions. Then, whenever you get new data, you can learn a more accurate causal model and thereby further shrink the space of interventions,” Uhler explains.

      This smaller search space, coupled with the acquisition function’s special focus on the most informative interventions, is what makes their approach so efficient.

      The researchers further improved their acquisition function using a technique known as output weighting, inspired by the study of extreme events in complex systems. This method carefully emphasizes interventions that are likely to be closer to the optimal intervention.

      “Essentially, we view an optimal intervention as an ‘extreme event’ within the space of all possible, suboptimal interventions and use some of the ideas we have developed for these problems,” Sapsis says.    

      Enhanced efficiency

      They tested their algorithms using real biological data in a simulated cellular reprogramming experiment. For this test, they sought a genetic perturbation that would result in a desired shift in average gene expression. Their acquisition functions consistently identified better interventions than baseline methods through every step in the multi-stage experiment.

      “If you cut the experiment off at any stage, ours would still be more efficient than the baselines. This means you could run fewer experiments and get the same or better results,” Zhang says.

      The researchers are currently working with experimentalists to apply their technique toward cellular reprogramming in the lab.

      Their approach could also be applied to problems outside genomics, such as identifying optimal prices for consumer products or enabling optimal feedback control in fluid mechanics applications.

      In the future, they plan to enhance their technique for optimizations beyond those that seek to match a desired mean. In addition, their method assumes that scientists already understand the causal relationships in their system, but future work could explore how to use AI to learn that information, as well.

      This work was funded, in part, by the Office of Naval Research, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the MIT J-Clinic for Machine Learning and Health, the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute, a Simons Investigator Award, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      J-PAL North America and Results for America announce 18 collaborations with state and local governments

      by

      J-PAL North America and Results for America have announced 18 new partnerships with state and local governments across the country through their Leveraging Evidence and Evaluation for Equitable Recovery (LEVER) programming, which launched in April of this year. 

      As state and local leaders leverage federal relief funding to invest in their communities, J-PAL North America and Results for America are providing in-depth support to agencies in using data, evaluation, and evidence to advance effective and equitable government programming for generations to come. The 18 new collaborators span the contiguous United States and represent a wide range of pressing and innovative uses of federal Covid-19 recovery funding.

      These partnerships are a key component of the LEVER program, run by J-PAL North America — a regional office of MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) — and Results for America — a nonprofit organization that helps government agencies harness the power of evidence and data. Through 2024, LEVER will continue to provide a suite of resources, training, and evaluation design services to prepare state and local government agencies to rigorously evaluate their own programs and to harness existing evidence in developing programs and policies using federal recovery dollars.

      J-PAL North America is working with four leading government agencies following a call for proposals to the LEVER Evaluation Incubator in June. These agencies will work with J-PAL staff to design randomized evaluations to understand the causal impact of important programs that contribute to their jurisdictions’ recovery from Covid-19.

      Connecticut’s Medicaid office, operating out of the state’s Department of Social Services, is working to improve vaccine access and awareness among youth. “Connecticut Medicaid is thrilled to work with J-PAL North America. The technical expertise and training that we receive will expand our knowledge during ‘testing and learning’ interventions that improve the health of our members,” says Gui Woolston, the director of Medicaid and Division of Health Services. 

      Athens-Clarke County Unified Government is invested in evaluating programming for youth development and violence prevention implemented by the Boys and Girls Club of Athens. Their goal is “to measure and transparently communicate program impact,” explains Paige Seago, the data and outcomes coordinator for the American Rescue Plan Act. “The ability to continually iterate and tailor programs to better meet community goals is crucial to long-term success.”

      The County of San Diego’s newly formed Office of Evaluation, Performance, and Analytics is evaluating a pilot program providing rental subsidies for older adults. “Randomized evaluation can help us understand if rent subsidies will help prevent seniors from becoming homeless and will give us useful information about how to move forward,” says Chief Evaluation Officer Ricardo Basurto-Dávila. 

      In King County, Washington, the Executive Climate Office is planning to evaluate efforts to increase equitable access to household energy efficiency programs. “Because of J-PAL’s support, we have confidence that we can reduce climate impacts and extend home electrification benefits to lower-income homeowners in King County — homeowners who otherwise may not have the ability to participate in the clean energy transition,” says King County Climate Director Marissa Aho.

      Fourteen additional state and local agencies are working with Results for America as part of the LEVER Training Sprint. Together, they will develop policies that catalyze sustainable evidence building within government. 

      Jurisdictions selected for the Training Sprint represent government leaders at the city, county, and state levels — all of whom are committed to creating an evaluation framework for policy that will prioritize evidence-based decision-making across the country. Over the course of 10 weeks, with access to tools and coaching, each team will develop an internal implementation policy by embedding key evaluation and evidence practices into their jurisdiction’s decision-making processes. Participants will finish the Training Sprint with a robust decision-making framework that translates their LEVER implementation policies into actionable planning guidance. 

      Government leaders will utilize the LEVER Training Sprint to build a culture of data and evidence focused on leveraging evaluation policies to invest in delivering tangible results for their residents. About their participation in the LEVER Training Sprint, Dana Williams from Denver, Colorado says, “Impact evaluation is such an integral piece to understanding the past, present, and future. I’m excited to participate in the LEVER Training Sprint to better inform and drive evidence-based programming in Denver.”

      The Training Sprint is a part of a growing movement to ground government innovation in data and evidence. Kermina Hanna from the State of New Jersey notes, “It’s vital that we cement a data-driven commitment to equity in government operations, and I’m really excited for this opportunity to develop a national network of colleagues in government who share this passion and dedication to responsive public service.”

      Jurisdictions selected for the Training Sprint are: 

      Boston, Massachusetts;
      Carlsbad, California;
      Connecticut;
      Dallas, Texas;
      Denver City/County, Colorado;
      Fort Collins, Colorado;
      Guilford County, North Carolina;
      King County, Washington;
      Long Beach, California;
      Los Angeles, California;
      New Jersey;
      New Mexico;
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
      Washington County, Oregon.
      Those interested in learning more can fill out the LEVER intake form. Please direct any questions about the Evaluation Incubator to Louise Geraghty and questions about the Training Sprint to Chelsea Powell. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Improving US air quality, equitably

      by

      Decarbonization of national economies will be key to achieving global net-zero emissions by 2050, a major stepping stone to the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of keeping global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (and ideally 1.5 C), and thereby averting the worst consequences of climate change. Toward that end, the United States has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, backed by its implementation of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. This strategy is consistent with a 50-percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) by the end of the decade.

      If U.S. federal carbon policy is successful, the nation’s overall air quality will also improve. Cutting CO2 emissions reduces atmospheric concentrations of air pollutants that lead to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which causes more than 200,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. But an average nationwide improvement in air quality will not be felt equally; air pollution exposure disproportionately harms people of color and lower-income populations.

      How effective are current federal decarbonization policies in reducing U.S. racial and economic disparities in PM2.5 exposure, and what changes will be needed to improve their performance? To answer that question, researchers at MIT and Stanford University recently evaluated a range of policies which, like current U.S. federal carbon policies, reduce economy-wide CO2 emissions by 40-60 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Their findings appear in an open-access article in the journal Nature Communications.

      First, they show that a carbon-pricing policy, while effective in reducing PM2.5 exposure for all racial/ethnic groups, does not significantly mitigate relative disparities in exposure. On average, the white population undergoes far less exposure than Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations. This policy does little to reduce exposure disparities because the CO2 emissions reductions that it achieves primarily occur in the coal-fired electricity sector. Other sectors, such as industry and heavy-duty diesel transportation, contribute far more PM2.5-related emissions.

      The researchers then examine thousands of different reduction options through an optimization approach to identify whether any possible combination of carbon dioxide reductions in the range of 40-60 percent can mitigate disparities. They find that that no policy scenario aligned with current U.S. carbon dioxide emissions targets is likely to significantly reduce current PM2.5 exposure disparities.

      “Policies that address only about 50 percent of CO2 emissions leave many polluting sources in place, and those that prioritize reductions for minorities tend to benefit the entire population,” says Noelle Selin, supervising author of the study and a professor at MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems and Society and Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. “This means that a large range of policies that reduce CO2 can improve air quality overall, but can’t address long-standing inequities in air pollution exposure.”

      So if climate policy alone cannot adequately achieve equitable air quality results, what viable options remain? The researchers suggest that more ambitious carbon policies could narrow racial and economic PM2.5 exposure disparities in the long term, but not within the next decade. To make a near-term difference, they recommend interventions designed to reduce PM2.5 emissions resulting from non-CO2 sources, ideally at the economic sector or community level.

      “Achieving improved PM2.5 exposure for populations that are disproportionately exposed across the United States will require thinking that goes beyond current CO2 policy strategies, most likely involving large-scale structural changes,” says Selin. “This could involve changes in local and regional transportation and housing planning, together with accelerated efforts towards decarbonization.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      From physics to generative AI: An AI model for advanced pattern generation

      by

      Generative AI, which is currently riding a crest of popular discourse, promises a world where the simple transforms into the complex — where a simple distribution evolves into intricate patterns of images, sounds, or text, rendering the artificial startlingly real. 

      The realms of imagination no longer remain as mere abstractions, as researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) have brought an innovative AI model to life. Their new technology integrates two seemingly unrelated physical laws that underpin the best-performing generative models to date: diffusion, which typically illustrates the random motion of elements, like heat permeating a room or a gas expanding into space, and Poisson Flow, which draws on the principles governing the activity of electric charges.

      This harmonious blend has resulted in superior performance in generating new images, outpacing existing state-of-the-art models. Since its inception, the “Poisson Flow Generative Model ++” (PFGM++) has found potential applications in various fields, from antibody and RNA sequence generation to audio production and graph generation.

      The model can generate complex patterns, like creating realistic images or mimicking real-world processes. PFGM++ builds off of PFGM, the team’s work from the prior year. PFGM takes inspiration from the means behind the mathematical equation known as the “Poisson” equation, and then applies it to the data the model tries to learn from. To do this, the team used a clever trick: They added an extra dimension to their model’s “space,” kind of like going from a 2D sketch to a 3D model. This extra dimension gives more room for maneuvering, places the data in a larger context, and helps one approach the data from all directions when generating new samples. 

      “PFGM++ is an example of the kinds of AI advances that can be driven through interdisciplinary collaborations between physicists and computer scientists,” says Jesse Thaler, theoretical particle physicist in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science’s Center for Theoretical Physics and director of the National Science Foundation’s AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions (NSF AI IAIFI), who was not involved in the work. “In recent years, AI-based generative models have yielded numerous eye-popping results, from photorealistic images to lucid streams of text. Remarkably, some of the most powerful generative models are grounded in time-tested concepts from physics, such as symmetries and thermodynamics. PFGM++ takes a century-old idea from fundamental physics — that there might be extra dimensions of space-time — and turns it into a powerful and robust tool to generate synthetic but realistic datasets. I’m thrilled to see the myriad of ways ‘physics intelligence’ is transforming the field of artificial intelligence.”

      The underlying mechanism of PFGM isn’t as complex as it might sound. The researchers compared the data points to tiny electric charges placed on a flat plane in a dimensionally expanded world. These charges produce an “electric field,” with the charges looking to move upwards along the field lines into an extra dimension and consequently forming a uniform distribution on a vast imaginary hemisphere. The generation process is like rewinding a videotape: starting with a uniformly distributed set of charges on the hemisphere and tracking their journey back to the flat plane along the electric lines, they align to match the original data distribution. This intriguing process allows the neural model to learn the electric field, and generate new data that mirrors the original. 

      The PFGM++ model extends the electric field in PFGM to an intricate, higher-dimensional framework. When you keep expanding these dimensions, something unexpected happens — the model starts resembling another important class of models, the diffusion models. This work is all about finding the right balance. The PFGM and diffusion models sit at opposite ends of a spectrum: one is robust but complex to handle, the other simpler but less sturdy. The PFGM++ model offers a sweet spot, striking a balance between robustness and ease of use. This innovation paves the way for more efficient image and pattern generation, marking a significant step forward in technology. Along with adjustable dimensions, the researchers proposed a new training method that enables more efficient learning of the electric field. 

      To bring this theory to life, the team resolved a pair of differential equations detailing these charges’ motion within the electric field. They evaluated the performance using the Frechet Inception Distance (FID) score, a widely accepted metric that assesses the quality of images generated by the model in comparison to the real ones. PFGM++ further showcases a higher resistance to errors and robustness toward the step size in the differential equations.

      Looking ahead, they aim to refine certain aspects of the model, particularly in systematic ways to identify the “sweet spot” value of D tailored for specific data, architectures, and tasks by analyzing the behavior of estimation errors of neural networks. They also plan to apply the PFGM++ to the modern large-scale text-to-image/text-to-video generation.

      “Diffusion models have become a critical driving force behind the revolution in generative AI,” says Yang Song, research scientist at OpenAI. “PFGM++ presents a powerful generalization of diffusion models, allowing users to generate higher-quality images by improving the robustness of image generation against perturbations and learning errors. Furthermore, PFGM++ uncovers a surprising connection between electrostatics and diffusion models, providing new theoretical insights into diffusion model research.”

      “Poisson Flow Generative Models do not only rely on an elegant physics-inspired formulation based on electrostatics, but they also offer state-of-the-art generative modeling performance in practice,” says NVIDIA Senior Research Scientist Karsten Kreis, who was not involved in the work. “They even outperform the popular diffusion models, which currently dominate the literature. This makes them a very powerful generative modeling tool, and I envision their application in diverse areas, ranging from digital content creation to generative drug discovery. More generally, I believe that the exploration of further physics-inspired generative modeling frameworks holds great promise for the future and that Poisson Flow Generative Models are only the beginning.”

      Authors on a paper about this work include three MIT graduate students: Yilun Xu of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and CSAIL, Ziming Liu of the Department of Physics and the NSF AI IAIFI, and Shangyuan Tong of EECS and CSAIL, as well as Google Senior Research Scientist Yonglong Tian PhD ’23. MIT professors Max Tegmark and Tommi Jaakkola advised the research.

      The team was supported by the MIT-DSTA Singapore collaboration, the MIT-IBM Grand Challenge project, National Science Foundation grants, The Casey and Family Foundation, the Foundational Questions Institute, the Rothberg Family Fund for Cognitive Science, and the ML for Pharmaceutical Discovery and Synthesis Consortium. Their work was presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning this summer. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      How an archeological approach can help leverage biased data in AI to improve medicine

      by

      The classic computer science adage “garbage in, garbage out” lacks nuance when it comes to understanding biased medical data, argue computer science and bioethics professors from MIT, Johns Hopkins University, and the Alan Turing Institute in a new opinion piece published in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The rising popularity of artificial intelligence has brought increased scrutiny to the matter of biased AI models resulting in algorithmic discrimination, which the White House Office of Science and Technology identified as a key issue in their recent Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. 

      When encountering biased data, particularly for AI models used in medical settings, the typical response is to either collect more data from underrepresented groups or generate synthetic data making up for missing parts to ensure that the model performs equally well across an array of patient populations. But the authors argue that this technical approach should be augmented with a sociotechnical perspective that takes both historical and current social factors into account. By doing so, researchers can be more effective in addressing bias in public health. 

      “The three of us had been discussing the ways in which we often treat issues with data from a machine learning perspective as irritations that need to be managed with a technical solution,” recalls co-author Marzyeh Ghassemi, an assistant professor in electrical engineering and computer science and an affiliate of the Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health (Jameel Clinic), the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and Institute of Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). “We had used analogies of data as an artifact that gives a partial view of past practices, or a cracked mirror holding up a reflection. In both cases the information is perhaps not entirely accurate or favorable: Maybe we think that we behave in certain ways as a society — but when you actually look at the data, it tells a different story. We might not like what that story is, but once you unearth an understanding of the past you can move forward and take steps to address poor practices.” 

      Data as artifact 

      In the paper, titled “Considering Biased Data as Informative Artifacts in AI-Assisted Health Care,” Ghassemi, Kadija Ferryman, and Maxine Mackintosh make the case for viewing biased clinical data as “artifacts” in the same way anthropologists or archeologists would view physical objects: pieces of civilization-revealing practices, belief systems, and cultural values — in the case of the paper, specifically those that have led to existing inequities in the health care system. 

      For example, a 2019 study showed that an algorithm widely considered to be an industry standard used health-care expenditures as an indicator of need, leading to the erroneous conclusion that sicker Black patients require the same level of care as healthier white patients. What researchers found was algorithmic discrimination failing to account for unequal access to care.  

      In this instance, rather than viewing biased datasets or lack of data as problems that only require disposal or fixing, Ghassemi and her colleagues recommend the “artifacts” approach as a way to raise awareness around social and historical elements influencing how data are collected and alternative approaches to clinical AI development. 

      “If the goal of your model is deployment in a clinical setting, you should engage a bioethicist or a clinician with appropriate training reasonably early on in problem formulation,” says Ghassemi. “As computer scientists, we often don’t have a complete picture of the different social and historical factors that have gone into creating data that we’ll be using. We need expertise in discerning when models generalized from existing data may not work well for specific subgroups.” 

      When more data can actually harm performance 

      The authors acknowledge that one of the more challenging aspects of implementing an artifact-based approach is being able to assess whether data have been racially corrected: i.e., using white, male bodies as the conventional standard that other bodies are measured against. The opinion piece cites an example from the Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration in 2021, which developed a new equation to measure kidney function because the old equation had previously been “corrected” under the blanket assumption that Black people have higher muscle mass. Ghassemi says that researchers should be prepared to investigate race-based correction as part of the research process. 

      In another recent paper accepted to this year’s International Conference on Machine Learning co-authored by Ghassemi’s PhD student Vinith Suriyakumar and University of California at San Diego Assistant Professor Berk Ustun, the researchers found that assuming the inclusion of personalized attributes like self-reported race improve the performance of ML models can actually lead to worse risk scores, models, and metrics for minority and minoritized populations.  

      “There’s no single right solution for whether or not to include self-reported race in a clinical risk score. Self-reported race is a social construct that is both a proxy for other information, and deeply proxied itself in other medical data. The solution needs to fit the evidence,” explains Ghassemi. 

      How to move forward 

      This is not to say that biased datasets should be enshrined, or biased algorithms don’t require fixing — quality training data is still key to developing safe, high-performance clinical AI models, and the NEJM piece highlights the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in driving ethical practices.  

      “Generating high-quality, ethically sourced datasets is crucial for enabling the use of next-generation AI technologies that transform how we do research,” NIH acting director Lawrence Tabak stated in a press release when the NIH announced its $130 million Bridge2AI Program last year. Ghassemi agrees, pointing out that the NIH has “prioritized data collection in ethical ways that cover information we have not previously emphasized the value of in human health — such as environmental factors and social determinants. I’m very excited about their prioritization of, and strong investments towards, achieving meaningful health outcomes.” 

      Elaine Nsoesie, an associate professor at the Boston University of Public Health, believes there are many potential benefits to treating biased datasets as artifacts rather than garbage, starting with the focus on context. “Biases present in a dataset collected for lung cancer patients in a hospital in Uganda might be different from a dataset collected in the U.S. for the same patient population,” she explains. “In considering local context, we can train algorithms to better serve specific populations.” Nsoesie says that understanding the historical and contemporary factors shaping a dataset can make it easier to identify discriminatory practices that might be coded in algorithms or systems in ways that are not immediately obvious. She also notes that an artifact-based approach could lead to the development of new policies and structures ensuring that the root causes of bias in a particular dataset are eliminated. 

      “People often tell me that they are very afraid of AI, especially in health. They’ll say, ‘I’m really scared of an AI misdiagnosing me,’ or ‘I’m concerned it will treat me poorly,’” Ghassemi says. “I tell them, you shouldn’t be scared of some hypothetical AI in health tomorrow, you should be scared of what health is right now. If we take a narrow technical view of the data we extract from systems, we could naively replicate poor practices. That’s not the only option — realizing there is a problem is our first step towards a larger opportunity.”  More