A paper seemingly demonstrating that GPT-4 could ace the MIT EECS + Math curriculum recently went viral on twitter, getting over 500 retweets in a single day. Like most, we were excited to read the analysis behind such a feat, but what we found left us surprised and disappointed. Even though the authors of the paper said they manually reviewed the published dataset for quality, we found clear signs that a significant portion of the evaluation dataset was contaminated in such a way that let the model cheat like a student who was fed the answers to a test right before taking it.

We think this should call into greater question the recent flurry of academic work using Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT to shortcut data validation — a foundational principle in any kind of science, and especially machine learning. These papers are often uploaded to Arxiv and widely shared on Twitter before any legitimate peer review. In this case, potentially spreading bad information and setting a poor precedent for future work. — Read More

Since the discovery of DNA in the 1950s, biologists have sought to tie lengths of genetic code to a range of cellular parts and processes—including, for example, the mRNA transcription of specific antibodies that powers the now-famous mRNA vaccines. Despite the progress in sequencing and understanding the genome since the discovery of DNA, one big missing link remained. Biologists lacked a way to accurately and efficiently predict the  3-D shape of an unknown protein using just its DNA or RNA source code. In biology, structure determines function. What a protein does in a cell depends on its shape. Cylindrical with a hollow middle makes for a good membrane receptor, while U-shaped enzymes catalyze chemical reactions in their fjord-like cavities. Being able to predict or even design proteins would be a leap forward in our understanding of human disease and unlock new treatments for a range of diseases.

But for more than 70 years, scientists have been stuck with slow methods that strained computers and relied largely on their own guesswork to tease out a protein’s structure. Despite knowing which stretches of DNA code for each of the amino acids that form the building blocks of every protein, biologists lacked a repeatable, generalizable formula to solve this so-called “protein-folding problem.” They needed a systematic understanding of how any string of amino acids, once linked, would fold into a 3-dimensional shape to unlock the vast universe of proteins.

In 2020, Google’s AI team DeepMind announced that its algorithm, AlphaFold, had solved the protein-folding problem. At first, this stunning breakthrough was met with excitement from most, with scientists always ready to test a new tool, and amusement by some. After all, wasn’t this the same company whose algorithm AlphaGo had defeated the world champion in the Chinese strategy game Go, just a few years before? Mastering a game more complex than chess, difficult as that is, felt trivial compared to the protein-folding problem. But AlphaFold proved its scientific mettle by sweeping an annual competition in which teams of biologists guess the structure of proteins based only on their genetic code. The algorithm far outpaced its human rivals, posting scores that predicted the final shape within an angstrom, the width of a single atom. Soon after, AlphaFold passed its first real-world test by correctly predicting the shape of the SARS-CoV-2 ‘spike’ protein, the virus’ conspicuous membrane receptor that is targeted by vaccines. Read More

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection has received much attention lately due to its importance in the safe deployment of neural networks. One of the key challenges is that models lack supervision signals from unknown data, and as a result, can produce overconfident predictions on OOD data. Previous approaches rely on real outlier datasets for model regularization, which can be costly and sometimes infeasible to obtain in practice. In this paper, we present VOS, a novel framework for OOD detection by adaptively synthesizing virtual outliers that can meaningfully regularize the model’s decision boundary during training. Specifically, VOS samples virtual outliers from the low-likelihood region of the class-conditional distribution estimated in the feature space. Alongside, we introduce a novel unknown aware training objective, which contrastively shapes the uncertainty space between the ID data and synthesized outlier data. VOS achieves competitive performance on both object detection and image classification models, reducing the FPR95 by up to 9.36% compared to the previous best method on object detectors. Read More

#accuracy

Active learning promises to alleviate the massive data needs of supervised machine learning: it has successfully improved sample efficiency by an order of magnitude on traditional tasks like topic classification and object recognition. However, we uncover a striking contrast to this promise: across 5 models and 4 datasets on the task of visual question answering, a wide variety of active learning approaches fail to outperform random selection. To understand this discrepancy, we profile 8 active learning methods on a per-example basis, and identify the problem as collective outliers – groups of examples that active learning methods prefer to acquire but models fail to learn (e.g., questions that ask about text in images or require external knowledge). Through systematic ablation experiments and qualitative visualizations, we verify that collective outliers are a general phenomenon responsible for degrading pool-based active learning. Notably, we show that active learning sample efficiency increases significantly as the number of collective outliers in the active learning pool decreases. We conclude with a discussion and prescriptive recommendations for mitigating the effects of these outliers in future work Read More

Just because a business process can be automated, doesn’t necessarily mean it should be automated. And maybe — just maybe — there are components of business that are not better served with AI algorithms doing the job.

That’s a key takeaway after Zillow Group made the unexpected decision on Tuesday to shutter its home buying business — a painful move that will result in 2,000 employees losing their jobs, a $304 million third quarter write-down, a spiraling stock price (shares are down more than 18% today), and egg on the face of co-founder and CEO Rich Barton. Read More

We identify label errors in the test sets of 10 of the most commonly-used computer vision, natural language, and audio datasets, and subsequently study the potential for these label errors to affect benchmark results. Errors in test sets are numerous and widespread: we estimate an average of 3.4% errors across the 10 datasets,1where for example 2916 label errors comprise 6% of the ImageNet validation set.Putative label errors are identified using confident learning algorithms and then human-validated via crowdsourcing (54% of the algorithmically-flagged candidates are indeed erroneously labeled). Traditionally, machine learning practitioners choose which model to deploy based on test accuracy — our findings advise caution here, proposing that judging models over correctly labeled test sets maybe more useful, especially for noisy real-world datasets. Surprisingly, we find that lower capacity models may be practically more useful than higher capacity models in real-world datasets with high proportions of erroneously labeled data.For example, on ImageNet with corrected labels: ResNet-18 outperforms ResNet-50 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 6%. OnCIFAR-10 with corrected labels: VGG-11 outperforms VGG-19 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 5%. Read More

#accuracy