基因集合是研究特定表型特征基因富集的共同点。基因集富集分析旨在鉴定基因集集合中代表过多的基因，并且可能与特定的表型性状有关。但是，由于这涉及大量的假设检验，因此通常值得怀疑的是，减少基因集的预处理步骤是否有帮助。此外，通常高度重叠的基因集以及基因集集合的低解释性要求减少所包含的基因集。受到这种生物信息学上下文的启发，我们提出了一种方法，可以根据单例及其大小在集合中进行排名。我们通过计算shapley值而不会导致值函数的评估数量数量来获得集合的重要性得分。此外，我们解决的挑战是，在我们的情况下，如果它们显示出突出的十字路口，则在获得的排名中包括冗余意识。我们最终评估了基因集合的方法；获得的排名显示出低冗余和高覆盖基因。拟议的排名的无监督性质不允许在减少集合的大小时明显增加特定表型特征的显着基因集数量。但是，我们认为提出的排名用于生物信息学以提高基因集集合的解释性，并向前迈出一步，将冗余纳入沙普利价值计算中。

Practitioners use Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) in different problems for about sixty years. Besides, Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) are an alternative to HMMs and appear in the literature as different and somewhat concurrent models. We propose two contributions. First, we show that basic Linear-Chain CRFs (LC-CRFs), considered as different from the HMMs, are in fact equivalent to them in the sense that for each LC-CRF there exists a HMM - that we specify - whom posterior distribution is identical to the given LC-CRF. Second, we show that it is possible to reformulate the generative Bayesian classifiers Maximum Posterior Mode (MPM) and Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) used in HMMs, as discriminative ones. The last point is of importance in many fields, especially in Natural Language Processing (NLP), as it shows that in some situations dropping HMMs in favor of CRFs was not necessary.

Creating compelling captions for data visualizations has been a longstanding challenge. Visualization researchers are typically untrained in journalistic reporting and hence the captions that are placed below data visualizations tend to be not overly engaging and rather just stick to basic observations about the data. In this work we explore the opportunities offered by the newly emerging crop of large language models (LLM) which use sophisticated deep learning technology to produce human-like prose. We ask, can these powerful software devices be purposed to produce engaging captions for generic data visualizations like a scatterplot. It turns out that the key challenge lies in designing the most effective prompt for the LLM, a task called prompt engineering. We report on first experiments using the popular LLM GPT-3 and deliver some promising results.

Using a comprehensive sample of 2,585 bankruptcies from 1990 to 2019, we benchmark the performance of various machine learning models in predicting financial distress of publicly traded U.S. firms. We find that gradient boosted trees outperform other models in one-year-ahead forecasts. Variable permutation tests show that excess stock returns, idiosyncratic risk, and relative size are the more important variables for predictions. Textual features derived from corporate filings do not improve performance materially. In a credit competition model that accounts for the asymmetric cost of default misclassification, the survival random forest is able to capture large dollar profits.

As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datasets and discover new cases of inverse scaling where LMs get worse with size. Larger LMs repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer ("sycophancy") and express greater desire to pursue concerning goals like resource acquisition and goal preservation. We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse. For example, RLHF makes LMs express stronger political views (on gun rights and immigration) and a greater desire to avoid shut down. Overall, LM-written evaluations are high-quality and let us quickly discover many novel LM behaviors.

Targeted syntactic evaluations of language models ask whether models show stable preferences for syntactically acceptable content over minimal-pair unacceptable inputs. Most targeted syntactic evaluation datasets ask models to make these judgements with just a single context-free sentence as input. This does not match language models' training regime, in which input sentences are always highly contextualized by the surrounding corpus. This mismatch raises an important question: how robust are models' syntactic judgements in different contexts? In this paper, we investigate the stability of language models' performance on targeted syntactic evaluations as we vary properties of the input context: the length of the context, the types of syntactic phenomena it contains, and whether or not there are violations of grammaticality. We find that model judgements are generally robust when placed in randomly sampled linguistic contexts. However, they are substantially unstable for contexts containing syntactic structures matching those in the critical test content. Among all tested models (GPT-2 and five variants of OPT), we significantly improve models' judgements by providing contexts with matching syntactic structures, and conversely significantly worsen them using unacceptable contexts with matching but violated syntactic structures. This effect is amplified by the length of the context, except for unrelated inputs. We show that these changes in model performance are not explainable by simple features matching the context and the test inputs, such as lexical overlap and dependency overlap. This sensitivity to highly specific syntactic features of the context can only be explained by the models' implicit in-context learning abilities.

As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supervised learning and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase we sample from an initial model, then generate self-critiques and revisions, and then finetune the original model on revised responses. In the RL phase, we sample from the finetuned model, use a model to evaluate which of the two samples is better, and then train a preference model from this dataset of AI preferences. We then train with RL using the preference model as the reward signal, i.e. we use 'RL from AI Feedback' (RLAIF). As a result we are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods can leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve the human-judged performance and transparency of AI decision making. These methods make it possible to control AI behavior more precisely and with far fewer human labels.

Traditional multi-task learning architectures train a single model across multiple tasks through a shared encoder followed by task-specific decoders. Learning these models often requires specialized training algorithms that address task-conflict in the shared parameter updates, which otherwise can lead to negative transfer. A new type of multi-task learning within NLP homogenizes multi-task architectures as a shared encoder and language model decoder, which does surprisingly well across a range of diverse tasks. Does this new architecture suffer from task-conflicts that require specialized training algorithms? We study how certain factors in the shift towards text-to-text models affects multi-task conflict and negative transfer, finding that both directional conflict and transfer are surprisingly constant across architectures.

The term ``neuromorphic'' refers to systems that are closely resembling the architecture and/or the dynamics of biological neural networks. Typical examples are novel computer chips designed to mimic the architecture of a biological brain, or sensors that get inspiration from, e.g., the visual or olfactory systems in insects and mammals to acquire information about the environment. This approach is not without ambition as it promises to enable engineered devices able to reproduce the level of performance observed in biological organisms -- the main immediate advantage being the efficient use of scarce resources, which translates into low power requirements. The emphasis on low power and energy efficiency of neuromorphic devices is a perfect match for space applications. Spacecraft -- especially miniaturized ones -- have strict energy constraints as they need to operate in an environment which is scarce with resources and extremely hostile. In this work we present an overview of early attempts made to study a neuromorphic approach in a space context at the European Space Agency's (ESA) Advanced Concepts Team (ACT).

When searching for policies, reward-sparse environments often lack sufficient information about which behaviors to improve upon or avoid. In such environments, the policy search process is bound to blindly search for reward-yielding transitions and no early reward can bias this search in one direction or another. A way to overcome this is to use intrinsic motivation in order to explore new transitions until a reward is found. In this work, we use a recently proposed definition of intrinsic motivation, Curiosity, in an evolutionary policy search method. We propose Curiosity-ES, an evolutionary strategy adapted to use Curiosity as a fitness metric. We compare Curiosity with Novelty, a commonly used diversity metric, and find that Curiosity can generate higher diversity over full episodes without the need for an explicit diversity criterion and lead to multiple policies which find reward.