The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.

Although many machine learning methods, especially from the field of deep learning, have been instrumental in addressing challenges within robotic applications, we cannot take full advantage of such methods before these can provide performance and safety guarantees. The lack of trust that impedes the use of these methods mainly stems from a lack of human understanding of what exactly machine learning models have learned, and how robust their behaviour is. This is the problem the field of explainable artificial intelligence aims to solve. Based on insights from the social sciences, we know that humans prefer contrastive explanations, i.e.\ explanations answering the hypothetical question "what if?". In this paper, we show that linear model trees are capable of producing answers to such questions, so-called counterfactual explanations, for robotic systems, including in the case of multiple, continuous inputs and outputs. We demonstrate the use of this method to produce counterfactual explanations for two robotic applications. Additionally, we explore the issue of infeasibility, which is of particular interest in systems governed by the laws of physics.

本文提出了一个论点，说明了为什么我们没有在解释性，可解释性和透明度研究中充分衡量信任。大多数研究要求参与者完成信任量表，以评估他们对已解释/解释的模型的信任。如果信托增加，我们认为这是积极的。但是，这有两个问题。首先，我们通常无法知道参与者是否应该信任该模型。如果模型质量较差，信任肯定应降低。其次，这些量表衡量了感知到的信任，而不是证明信任。本文展示了三种在衡量感知和证明信任方面做得很好的方法。它旨在讨论此主题的起点，而不是成为最终决定。作者引起了批评和讨论。

虽然我们注意临床自然语言处理（NLP）的最新进展，但我们可以注意到临床和翻译研究界的一些抵抗，因为透明度，可解释性和可用性有限，采用NLP模型。在这项研究中，我们提出了一种开放的自然语言处理开发框架。我们通过实施NLP算法为国家Covid队列协作（N3C）进行了评估。基于Covid-19相关临床笔记的信息提取的利益，我们的工作包括1）使用Covid-19标志和症状作为用例的开放数据注释过程，2）一个社区驱动的规则集合平台，3）合成文本数据生成工作流程，用于生成信息提取任务的文本而不涉及人为受试者。 Corpora来自来自三个不同机构的文本（Mayo Clinic，肯塔基州大学，明尼苏达大学）。用单个机构（Mayo）规则集进行了金标准注释。这导致了0.876,0.706和0.694的F-Scors分别用于Mayo，Minnesota和肯塔基测试数据集。作为N3C NLP子群体的联盟努力的研究表明，创建联邦NLP算法开发和基准测试平台的可行性，以增强多机构临床NLP研究和采用。虽然我们在这项工作中使用Covid-19作为用例，但我们的框架足以适用于临床NLP的其他兴趣领域。

Recent progress in pretraining language models on large textual corpora led to a surge of improvements for downstream NLP tasks. Whilst learning linguistic knowledge, these models may also be storing relational knowledge present in the training data, and may be able to answer queries structured as "fillin-the-blank" cloze statements. Language models have many advantages over structured knowledge bases: they require no schema engineering, allow practitioners to query about an open class of relations, are easy to extend to more data, and require no human supervision to train. We present an in-depth analysis of the relational knowledge already present (without fine-tuning) in a wide range of state-of-theart pretrained language models. We find that (i) without fine-tuning, BERT contains relational knowledge competitive with traditional NLP methods that have some access to oracle knowledge, (ii) BERT also does remarkably well on open-domain question answering against a supervised baseline, and (iii) certain types of factual knowledge are learned much more readily than others by standard language model pretraining approaches. The surprisingly strong ability of these models to recall factual knowledge without any fine-tuning demonstrates their potential as unsupervised open-domain QA systems. The code to reproduce our analysis is available at https: //github.com/facebookresearch/LAMA.

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

Modeling lies at the core of both the financial and the insurance industry for a wide variety of tasks. The rise and development of machine learning and deep learning models have created many opportunities to improve our modeling toolbox. Breakthroughs in these fields often come with the requirement of large amounts of data. Such large datasets are often not publicly available in finance and insurance, mainly due to privacy and ethics concerns. This lack of data is currently one of the main hurdles in developing better models. One possible option to alleviating this issue is generative modeling. Generative models are capable of simulating fake but realistic-looking data, also referred to as synthetic data, that can be shared more freely. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) is such a model that increases our capacity to fit very high-dimensional distributions of data. While research on GANs is an active topic in fields like computer vision, they have found limited adoption within the human sciences, like economics and insurance. Reason for this is that in these fields, most questions are inherently about identification of causal effects, while to this day neural networks, which are at the center of the GAN framework, focus mostly on high-dimensional correlations. In this paper we study the causal preservation capabilities of GANs and whether the produced synthetic data can reliably be used to answer causal questions. This is done by performing causal analyses on the synthetic data, produced by a GAN, with increasingly more lenient assumptions. We consider the cross-sectional case, the time series case and the case with a complete structural model. It is shown that in the simple cross-sectional scenario where correlation equals causation the GAN preserves causality, but that challenges arise for more advanced analyses.

KL-regularized reinforcement learning from expert demonstrations has proved successful in improving the sample efficiency of deep reinforcement learning algorithms, allowing them to be applied to challenging physical real-world tasks. However, we show that KL-regularized reinforcement learning with behavioral reference policies derived from expert demonstrations can suffer from pathological training dynamics that can lead to slow, unstable, and suboptimal online learning. We show empirically that the pathology occurs for commonly chosen behavioral policy classes and demonstrate its impact on sample efficiency and online policy performance. Finally, we show that the pathology can be remedied by non-parametric behavioral reference policies and that this allows KL-regularized reinforcement learning to significantly outperform state-of-the-art approaches on a variety of challenging locomotion and dexterous hand manipulation tasks.

Scientists and philosophers have debated whether humans can trust advanced artificial intelligence (AI) agents to respect humanity's best interests. Yet what about the reverse? Will advanced AI agents trust humans? Gauging an AI agent's trust in humans is challenging because--absent costs for dishonesty--such agents might respond falsely about their trust in humans. Here we present a method for incentivizing machine decisions without altering an AI agent's underlying algorithms or goal orientation. In two separate experiments, we then employ this method in hundreds of trust games between an AI agent (a Large Language Model (LLM) from OpenAI) and a human experimenter (author TJ). In our first experiment, we find that the AI agent decides to trust humans at higher rates when facing actual incentives than when making hypothetical decisions. Our second experiment replicates and extends these findings by automating game play and by homogenizing question wording. We again observe higher rates of trust when the AI agent faces real incentives. Across both experiments, the AI agent's trust decisions appear unrelated to the magnitude of stakes. Furthermore, to address the possibility that the AI agent's trust decisions reflect a preference for uncertainty, the experiments include two conditions that present the AI agent with a non-social decision task that provides the opportunity to choose a certain or uncertain option; in those conditions, the AI agent consistently chooses the certain option. Our experiments suggest that one of the most advanced AI language models to date alters its social behavior in response to incentives and displays behavior consistent with trust toward a human interlocutor when incentivized.

Regularising the parameter matrices of neural networks is ubiquitous in training deep models. Typical regularisation approaches suggest initialising weights using small random values, and to penalise weights to promote sparsity. However, these widely used techniques may be less effective in certain scenarios. Here, we study the Koopman autoencoder model which includes an encoder, a Koopman operator layer, and a decoder. These models have been designed and dedicated to tackle physics-related problems with interpretable dynamics and an ability to incorporate physics-related constraints. However, the majority of existing work employs standard regularisation practices. In our work, we take a step toward augmenting Koopman autoencoders with initialisation and penalty schemes tailored for physics-related settings. Specifically, we propose the "eigeninit" initialisation scheme that samples initial Koopman operators from specific eigenvalue distributions. In addition, we suggest the "eigenloss" penalty scheme that penalises the eigenvalues of the Koopman operator during training. We demonstrate the utility of these schemes on two synthetic data sets: a driven pendulum and flow past a cylinder; and two real-world problems: ocean surface temperatures and cyclone wind fields. We find on these datasets that eigenloss and eigeninit improves the convergence rate by up to a factor of 5, and that they reduce the cumulative long-term prediction error by up to a factor of 3. Such a finding points to the utility of incorporating similar schemes as an inductive bias in other physics-related deep learning approaches.