Software

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Making data visualization more accessible for blind and low-vision individuals

      by

      Data visualizations on the web are largely inaccessible for blind and low-vision individuals who use screen readers, an assistive technology that reads on-screen elements as text-to-speech. This excludes millions of people from the opportunity to probe and interpret insights that are often presented through charts, such as election results, health statistics, and economic indicators. 

      When a designer attempts to make a visualization accessible, best practices call for including a few sentences of text that describe the chart and a link to the underlying data table — a far cry from the rich reading experience available to sighted users.

      An interdisciplinary team of researchers from MIT and elsewhere is striving to create screen-reader-friendly data visualizations that offer a similarly rich experience. They prototyped several visualization structures that provide text descriptions at varying levels of detail, enabling a screen-reader user to drill down from high-level data to more detailed information using just a few keystrokes.

      The MIT team embarked on an iterative co-design process with collaborator Daniel Hajas, a researcher at University College London who works with the Global Disability Innovation Hub and lost his sight at age 16. They collaborated to develop prototypes and ran a detailed user study with blind and low-vision individuals to gather feedback.

      “Researchers might see some connections between problems and be aware of potential solutions, but very often they miss it by a little bit. Insights from people who have the lived experience of a certain specific, measurable problem are really important for a lot of disability-related solutions. I think we found a really nice fit,” says Hajas.

      They created a framework to help designers think systematically about how to develop accessible visualizations. In the future, they plan to use their prototypes and design framework to build a user-friendly tool that could convert visualizations into accessible formats.

      MIT collaborators include co-lead authors and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) graduate students Jonathan Zong, Crystal Lee, and Alan Lundgard, as well as JiWoong Jang, an undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon University who worked on this project during MIT’s Summer Research Program (MSRP), and senior author Arvind Satyanarayan, assistant professor of computer science who leads the Visualization Group in CSAIL. The research paper, which will be presented at the Eurographics Conference on Visualization, won a best paper honorable mention award.

      “Push what is possible”

      The researchers defined three design dimensions as key to making accessible visualizations: structure, navigation, and description. Structure involves arranging the information into a hierarchy. Navigation refers to how the user moves through different levels of detail. Description is how the information is spoken, including how much information is conveyed.

      Using these design dimensions, they developed several visualization prototypes that emphasized ease-of-navigation for screen-reader users. One prototype, known as multiview, enabled individuals to use the up and down arrows to navigate between different levels of information (like the chart title as the top level, the legend as the second level, etc.), and the right and left arrow keys to cycle through information on the same level (such as adjacent scatterplots). Another prototype, known as target, included the same arrow key navigation but also a drop-down menu of key chart locations so the user could quickly jump to an area of interest.

      “Our goal is not just to work within existing standards to make them serviceable. We really set out to do grounded speculation and imagine where we can push what is possible with these existing standards. We didn’t want to limit ourselves to refitting tools that were designed for images,” says Zong.

      They tested these prototypes and an accessible data table, the existing best practice for accessible visualizations, with 13 blind and visually impaired screen-reader users. They asked users to rate each tool on several criteria, including how easy it was to learn and how easy it was to locate data or answer questions.

      “One thing I thought was really interesting was how much people were constantly testing their own hypotheses or trying to make specific patterns as they moved through the visualization. The implication for navigation is that you want to be able to orient yourself within the visualization so you know where the limits are,” says Lee. “Can you accurately and easily know where the walls are in the room you are exploring?”

      Improved insights

      Users said both prototypes enabled them to more rapidly identify patterns in the data. Scrolling from a high level to deeper levels of information helped them gain insights more easily than when browsing the data table, they said. They also enjoyed faster navigation using the menu in the target prototype.

      But the data table got top marks for ease of use.

      “I expected people to be disappointed with the everyday tools when compared to the new prototypes, but they still clung to the data table a bit, likely because of their familiarity with it. That shows that principles like familiarity, learnability, and usability still matter. No matter how ‘good’ our new invention is, if it is not easy enough to learn, people might stick with an older version,” Hajas says.

      Drawing on these insights, the researchers are refining the prototypes and using them to build a software package that can be used with existing design tools to give visualizations an accessible, navigable structure.

      They also want to explore multimodal solutions. Some study participants used different devices together, like screen readers and braille displays, or data sonification tools that convey information using non-speech audio. How these tools can complement each other when applied to a visualization is still an open question, Zong says.

      In the long-run, they hope their work might lead to careful rethinking of web accessibility standards.

      “There is no one-size-fits-all solution for accessibility. While existing standards don’t presume that, they only offer simple approaches, like data tables and alt text. One of the key benefits of our research contribution is that we are proposing a framework — different preferences and data representations are situated at different points in this design space,” says Lundgard.

      “We have been working hard toward reducing the inequities that screen-reader users face when extracting information from online data visualizations for the past few years. So, we are really appreciative of this work and the knowledge that it adds to the existing literature,” says Ather Sharif, a graduate student who researches accessibility and visualization in the labs of professors Jacob Wobbrock and Katharina Reinecke at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering of the University of Washington at Seattle, and who was not involved with this work.

      “I like to think of it as a movement where we’re all finally coming together and improving the experiences of a demographic that has been largely ignored, especially when presenting data through visualizations. Kudos to Jonathan, Arvind, and their team for this insightful and timely work! I am looking forward to what’s next,” adds Sharif, who is lead author of several recent papers related to accessible data visualizations.

      Amy Bower, a senior scientist in the Department of Physical Oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who suffers from a degenerative retinal disease and uses a screen reader extensively in her work as a researcher and also for basic living tasks, found the researchers’ explanations of the importance of co-design to be powerful and compelling.  

      “As a blind scientist, I’m constantly searching for effective tools that will allow me to access the information conveyed in data visualizations. The layered approach taken by these researchers, which provides the option to get the ‘big picture’ from the data as well as drill down into the data points themselves, allows the user to choose how they want to explore the data,” says Bower, who also was not involved with this work. “I think the ability to freely explore the data is necessary not just to learn the ‘story’ that the data are telling, but to allow a blind researcher such as myself to formulate the next questions that need to be tackled to advance understanding in any field of study.”

      This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation.   More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      3 Questions: Designing software for research ethics

      by

      Data are arguably the world’s hottest form of currency, clocking in zeros and ones that hold ever more weight than before. But with all of our personal information being crunched into dynamite for enterprise solutions and the like, with a lack of consumer data protection, are we all getting left behind? 

      Jonathan Zong, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, and an affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, thinks consent can be baked into the design of the software that gathers our data for online research. He created Bartleby, a system for debriefing research participants and eliciting their views about social media research that involved them. Using Bartleby, he says, researchers can automatically direct each of their study participants to a website where they can learn about their involvement in research, view what data researchers collected about them, and give feedback. Most importantly, participants can use the website to opt out and request to delete their data.  

      Zong and his co-author, Nathan Matias SM ’13, PhD ’17, evaluated Bartleby by debriefing thousands of participants in observational and experimental studies on Twitter and Reddit. They found that Bartleby addresses procedural concerns by creating opportunities for participants to exercise autonomy, and the tool enabled substantive, value-driven conversations about participant voice and power. Here, Zong discusses the implications of their recent work as well as the future of social, ethical, and responsible computing.

      Q: Many leading tech ethicists and policymakers believe it’s impossible to keep people informed about their involvement in research and how their data are used. How has your work changed that?

      A: When Congress asked Mark Zuckerberg in 2018 about Facebook’s obligations to keep users informed about how their data is used, his answer was effectively that all users had the opportunity to read the privacy policy, and that being any clearer would be too difficult. Tech elites often blanket-statement that ethics is complicated, and proceed with their objective anyway. Many have claimed it’s impossible to fulfill ethical responsibilities to users at scale, so why try? But by creating Bartleby, a system for debriefing participants and eliciting their views about studies that involved them, we built something that shows that it’s not only very possible, but actually pretty easy to do. In a lot of situations, letting people know we want their data and explaining why we think it’s worth it is the bare minimum we could be doing.

      Q: Can ethical challenges be solved with a software tool?

      A: Off-the-shelf software actually can make a meaningful difference in respecting people’s autonomy. Ethics regulations almost never require a debriefing process for online studies. But because we used Bartleby, people had a chance to make an informed decision. It’s a chance they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

      At the same time, we realized that using Bartleby shined a light on deeper ethics questions that required substantive reflection. For example, most people are just trying to go about their lives and ignore the messages we send them, while others reply with concerns that aren’t even always about the research. Even if indirectly, these instances help signal nuances that research participants care about.

      Where might our values as researchers differ from participants’ values? How do the power structures that shape researchers’ interaction with users and communities affect our ability to see those differences? Using software to deliver ethics procedures helps bring these questions to light. But rather than expecting definitive answers that work in every situation, we should be thinking about how using software to create opportunities for participant voice and power challenges and invites us to reflect on how we address conflicting values.

      Q: How does your approach to design help suggest a way forward for social, ethical, and responsible computing?

      A: In addition to presenting the software tool, our peer-reviewed article on Bartleby also demonstrates a theoretical framework for data ethics, inspired by ideas in feminist philosophy. Because my work spans software design, empirical social science, and philosophy, I often think about the things I want people to take away in terms of interdisciplinary bridges I want to build. 

      I hope people look at Bartleby and see that ethics is an exciting area for technical innovation that can be tested empirically — guided by a clear-headed understanding of values. Umberto Eco, a philosopher, wrote that “form must not be a vehicle for thought, it must be a way of thinking.” In other words, designing software isn’t just about putting ideas we’ve already had into a computational form. Design is also a way we can think new ideas into existence, produce new ways of knowing and doing, and imagine alternative futures. More

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Estimating the informativeness of data

      by

      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

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      How quickly do algorithms improve?

      by

      Algorithms are sort of like a parent to a computer. They tell the computer how to make sense of information so they can, in turn, make something useful out of it.

      The more efficient the algorithm, the less work the computer has to do. For all of the technological progress in computing hardware, and the much debated lifespan of Moore’s Law, computer performance is only one side of the picture.

      Behind the scenes a second trend is happening: Algorithms are being improved, so in turn less computing power is needed. While algorithmic efficiency may have less of a spotlight, you’d definitely notice if your trusty search engine suddenly became one-tenth as fast, or if moving through big datasets felt like wading through sludge.

      This led scientists from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) to ask: How quickly do algorithms improve?  

      Existing data on this question were largely anecdotal, consisting of case studies of particular algorithms that were assumed to be representative of the broader scope. Faced with this dearth of evidence, the team set off to crunch data from 57 textbooks and more than 1,110 research papers, to trace the history of when algorithms got better. Some of the research papers directly reported how good new algorithms were, and others needed to be reconstructed by the authors using “pseudocode,” shorthand versions of the algorithm that describe the basic details.

      In total, the team looked at 113 “algorithm families,” sets of algorithms solving the same problem that had been highlighted as most important by computer science textbooks. For each of the 113, the team reconstructed its history, tracking each time a new algorithm was proposed for the problem and making special note of those that were more efficient. Ranging in performance and separated by decades, starting from the 1940s to now, the team found an average of eight algorithms per family, of which a couple improved its efficiency. To share this assembled database of knowledge, the team also created Algorithm-Wiki.org.

      The scientists charted how quickly these families had improved, focusing on the most-analyzed feature of the algorithms — how fast they could guarantee to solve the problem (in computer speak: “worst-case time complexity”). What emerged was enormous variability, but also important insights on how transformative algorithmic improvement has been for computer science.

      For large computing problems, 43 percent of algorithm families had year-on-year improvements that were equal to or larger than the much-touted gains from Moore’s Law. In 14 percent of problems, the improvement to performance from algorithms vastly outpaced those that have come from improved hardware. The gains from algorithm improvement were particularly large for big-data problems, so the importance of those advancements has grown in recent decades.

      The single biggest change that the authors observed came when an algorithm family transitioned from exponential to polynomial complexity. The amount of effort it takes to solve an exponential problem is like a person trying to guess a combination on a lock. If you only have a single 10-digit dial, the task is easy. With four dials like a bicycle lock, it’s hard enough that no one steals your bike, but still conceivable that you could try every combination. With 50, it’s almost impossible — it would take too many steps. Problems that have exponential complexity are like that for computers: As they get bigger they quickly outpace the ability of the computer to handle them. Finding a polynomial algorithm often solves that, making it possible to tackle problems in a way that no amount of hardware improvement can.

      As rumblings of Moore’s Law coming to an end rapidly permeate global conversations, the researchers say that computing users will increasingly need to turn to areas like algorithms for performance improvements. The team says the findings confirm that historically, the gains from algorithms have been enormous, so the potential is there. But if gains come from algorithms instead of hardware, they’ll look different. Hardware improvement from Moore’s Law happens smoothly over time, and for algorithms the gains come in steps that are usually large but infrequent. 

      “This is the first paper to show how fast algorithms are improving across a broad range of examples,” says Neil Thompson, an MIT research scientist at CSAIL and the Sloan School of Management and senior author on the new paper. “Through our analysis, we were able to say how many more tasks could be done using the same amount of computing power after an algorithm improved. As problems increase to billions or trillions of data points, algorithmic improvement becomes substantially more important than hardware improvement. In an era where the environmental footprint of computing is increasingly worrisome, this is a way to improve businesses and other organizations without the downside.”

      Thompson wrote the paper alongside MIT visiting student Yash Sherry. The paper is published in the Proceedings of the IEEE. The work was funded by the Tides foundation and the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Exact symbolic artificial intelligence for faster, better assessment of AI fairness

      by

      The justice system, banks, and private companies use algorithms to make decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives. Unfortunately, those algorithms are sometimes biased — disproportionately impacting people of color as well as individuals in lower income classes when they apply for loans or jobs, or even when courts decide what bail should be set while a person awaits trial.

      MIT researchers have developed a new artificial intelligence programming language that can assess the fairness of algorithms more exactly, and more quickly, than available alternatives.

      Their Sum-Product Probabilistic Language (SPPL) is a probabilistic programming system. Probabilistic programming is an emerging field at the intersection of programming languages and artificial intelligence that aims to make AI systems much easier to develop, with early successes in computer vision, common-sense data cleaning, and automated data modeling. Probabilistic programming languages make it much easier for programmers to define probabilistic models and carry out probabilistic inference — that is, work backward to infer probable explanations for observed data.

      “There are previous systems that can solve various fairness questions. Our system is not the first; but because our system is specialized and optimized for a certain class of models, it can deliver solutions thousands of times faster,” says Feras Saad, a PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) and first author on a recent paper describing the work. Saad adds that the speedups are not insignificant: The system can be up to 3,000 times faster than previous approaches.

      SPPL gives fast, exact solutions to probabilistic inference questions such as “How likely is the model to recommend a loan to someone over age 40?” or “Generate 1,000 synthetic loan applicants, all under age 30, whose loans will be approved.” These inference results are based on SPPL programs that encode probabilistic models of what kinds of applicants are likely, a priori, and also how to classify them. Fairness questions that SPPL can answer include “Is there a difference between the probability of recommending a loan to an immigrant and nonimmigrant applicant with the same socioeconomic status?” or “What’s the probability of a hire, given that the candidate is qualified for the job and from an underrepresented group?”

      SPPL is different from most probabilistic programming languages, as SPPL only allows users to write probabilistic programs for which it can automatically deliver exact probabilistic inference results. SPPL also makes it possible for users to check how fast inference will be, and therefore avoid writing slow programs. In contrast, other probabilistic programming languages such as Gen and Pyro allow users to write down probabilistic programs where the only known ways to do inference are approximate — that is, the results include errors whose nature and magnitude can be hard to characterize.

      Error from approximate probabilistic inference is tolerable in many AI applications. But it is undesirable to have inference errors corrupting results in socially impactful applications of AI, such as automated decision-making, and especially in fairness analysis.

      Jean-Baptiste Tristan, associate professor at Boston College and former research scientist at Oracle Labs, who was not involved in the new research, says, “I’ve worked on fairness analysis in academia and in real-world, large-scale industry settings. SPPL offers improved flexibility and trustworthiness over other PPLs on this challenging and important class of problems due to the expressiveness of the language, its precise and simple semantics, and the speed and soundness of the exact symbolic inference engine.”

      SPPL avoids errors by restricting to a carefully designed class of models that still includes a broad class of AI algorithms, including the decision tree classifiers that are widely used for algorithmic decision-making. SPPL works by compiling probabilistic programs into a specialized data structure called a “sum-product expression.” SPPL further builds on the emerging theme of using probabilistic circuits as a representation that enables efficient probabilistic inference. This approach extends prior work on sum-product networks to models and queries expressed via a probabilistic programming language. However, Saad notes that this approach comes with limitations: “SPPL is substantially faster for analyzing the fairness of a decision tree, for example, but it can’t analyze models like neural networks. Other systems can analyze both neural networks and decision trees, but they tend to be slower and give inexact answers.”

      “SPPL shows that exact probabilistic inference is practical, not just theoretically possible, for a broad class of probabilistic programs,” says Vikash Mansinghka, an MIT principal research scientist and senior author on the paper. “In my lab, we’ve seen symbolic inference driving speed and accuracy improvements in other inference tasks that we previously approached via approximate Monte Carlo and deep learning algorithms. We’ve also been applying SPPL to probabilistic programs learned from real-world databases, to quantify the probability of rare events, generate synthetic proxy data given constraints, and automatically screen data for probable anomalies.”

      The new SPPL probabilistic programming language was presented in June at the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), in a paper that Saad co-authored with MIT EECS Professor Martin Rinard and Mansinghka. SPPL is implemented in Python and is available open source. More

    • 38 Shares129 Views

      in Artificial Intelligence

      Contact-aware robot design

      by

      Adequate biomimicry in robotics necessitates a delicate balance between design and control, an integral part of making our machines more like us. Advanced dexterity in humans is wrapped up in a long evolutionary tale of how our fists of fury evolved to accomplish complex tasks. With machines, designing a new robotic manipulator could mean long, manual iteration cycles of designing, fabricating, and evaluating guided by human intuition. 

      Most robotic hands are designed for general purposes, as it’s very tedious to make task-specific hands. Existing methods battle trade-offs between the complexity of designs critical for contact-rich tasks, and the practical constraints of manufacturing, and contact handling. 

      This led researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) to create a new method to computationally optimize the shape and control of a robotic manipulator for a specific task. Their system uses software to manipulate the design, simulate the robot doing a task, and then provide an optimization score to assess the design and control. 

      Such task-driven manipulator optimization has potential for a wide range of applications in manufacturing and warehouse robot systems, where each task needs to be performed repeatedly, but different manipulators would be suitable for individual tasks. 

      Play video

      A new method to represent robotic manipulators helps optimize complex and organic shapes for future machines.

      Seeking to test the functionality of the system, the team first created a single robotic finger design to flip over a box on the ground. The fingertip structure, which looked something like Captain Hook’s left hand, was automatically optimized by an algorithm to hook onto the box’s back surface and flip it. They also developed a model for an assembly task, where a two-finger design put a small cube into a larger, movable mount. Since the fingers were two different lengths, they could reach two objects of different sizes, and the larger and flatter surfaces of the fingers helped stably push the object. 

      Traditionally, this joint optimization process consists of using simple, more primitive shapes to approximate each component of a robot design. When creating a three-segment robotic finger, for example, it would likely be approximated by three connected cylinders, where the algorithm optimizes the length and radius to achieve the desired design and shape. While this would simplify the optimization problem, oversimplifying the shape would be limiting for more complex designs, and ultimately complex tasks. 

      To create more involved manipulators, the team’s method used a technique called “cage-based deformation,” which essentially lets the user change or deform the geometry of a shape in real-time.

      Using the software, you’d put something that looks like a cage around the robotic finger, for example. The algorithm can automatically change the cage dimensions to make more sophisticated, natural shapes. The different variations of designs still keep their integrity, so they can be easily fabricated.

      A simulator was developed by the team to simulate the manipulator design and control on a task, which then provides a performance score.

      “Using these simulation tools, we don’t need to evaluate the design by manufacturing and testing it in the real world,” says Jie Xu, MIT PhD student and lead author on a new paper about the research. “In contrast to reinforcement learning algorithms that are popular for manipulation, but are data-inefficient, the proposed cage-based representation and the simulator allows for the use of powerful gradient-based methods. We not only find better solutions, but also find them faster. As a result we can quickly score the design, thus significantly shortening the design cycle.”

      In the future, the team plans to extend the software to optimize the manipulators concurrently for multiple tasks.

      Xu wrote the paper alongside MIT PhD student Tao Chen, MIT graduate student Lara Zlokapa, MIT research scientist Michael Foshey, MIT Professor Wojciech Matusik, Texas A&M University Assistant professor Shinjiro Sueda, and MIT Professor Pulkit Agrawal. They presented the paper virtually at the 2021 Robotic Science and Systems conference last week. The work is supported by the Toyota Research Institute. More