-
Development and Validation of ML-DQA -- a Machine Learning Data Quality Assurance Framework for Healthcare
Authors:
Mark Sendak,
Gaurav Sirdeshmukh,
Timothy Ochoa,
Hayley Premo,
Linda Tang,
Kira Niederhoffer,
Sarah Reed,
Kaivalya Deshpande,
Emily Sterrett,
Melissa Bauer,
Laurie Snyder,
Afreen Shariff,
David Whellan,
Jeffrey Riggio,
David Gaieski,
Kristin Corey,
Megan Richards,
Michael Gao,
Marshall Nichols,
Bradley Heintze,
William Knechtle,
William Ratliff,
Suresh Balu
Abstract:
The approaches by which the machine learning and clinical research communities utilize real world data (RWD), including data captured in the electronic health record (EHR), vary dramatically. While clinical researchers cautiously use RWD for clinical investigations, ML for healthcare teams consume public datasets with minimal scrutiny to develop new algorithms. This study bridges this gap by devel…
▽ More
The approaches by which the machine learning and clinical research communities utilize real world data (RWD), including data captured in the electronic health record (EHR), vary dramatically. While clinical researchers cautiously use RWD for clinical investigations, ML for healthcare teams consume public datasets with minimal scrutiny to develop new algorithms. This study bridges this gap by developing and validating ML-DQA, a data quality assurance framework grounded in RWD best practices. The ML-DQA framework is applied to five ML projects across two geographies, different medical conditions, and different cohorts. A total of 2,999 quality checks and 24 quality reports were generated on RWD gathered on 247,536 patients across the five projects. Five generalizable practices emerge: all projects used a similar method to group redundant data element representations; all projects used automated utilities to build diagnosis and medication data elements; all projects used a common library of rules-based transformations; all projects used a unified approach to assign data quality checks to data elements; and all projects used a similar approach to clinical adjudication. An average of 5.8 individuals, including clinicians, data scientists, and trainees, were involved in implementing ML-DQA for each project and an average of 23.4 data elements per project were either transformed or removed in response to ML-DQA. This study demonstrates the importance role of ML-DQA in healthcare projects and provides teams a framework to conduct these essential activities.
△ Less
Submitted 4 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Blaming humans in autonomous vehicle accidents: Shared responsibility across levels of automation
Authors:
Edmond Awad,
Sydney Levine,
Max Kleiman-Weiner,
Sohan Dsouza,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum,
Azim Shariff,
Jean-François Bonnefon,
Iyad Rahwan
Abstract:
When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered…
▽ More
When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered causally responsible for the harm, regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of shared control between a human and a machine, the blame and responsibility attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning AI components of semi-autonomous cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: a bottom-up regulatory scheme (which operates through tort law that is adjudicated through the jury system) could fail to properly regulate the safety of shared-control vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (enacted through federal laws) may be called for.
△ Less
Submitted 21 March, 2018; v1 submitted 19 March, 2018;
originally announced March 2018.
-
Cooperating with Machines
Authors:
Jacob W. Crandall,
Mayada Oudah,
Tennom,
Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko,
Sherief Abdallah,
Jean-François Bonnefon,
Manuel Cebrian,
Azim Shariff,
Michael A. Goodrich,
Iyad Rahwan
Abstract:
Since Alan Turing envisioned Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1], a major driving force behind technical progress has been competition with human cognition. Historical milestones have been frequently associated with computers matching or outperforming humans in difficult cognitive tasks (e.g. face recognition [2], personality classification [3], driving cars [4], or playing video games [5]), or defea…
▽ More
Since Alan Turing envisioned Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1], a major driving force behind technical progress has been competition with human cognition. Historical milestones have been frequently associated with computers matching or outperforming humans in difficult cognitive tasks (e.g. face recognition [2], personality classification [3], driving cars [4], or playing video games [5]), or defeating humans in strategic zero-sum encounters (e.g. Chess [6], Checkers [7], Jeopardy! [8], Poker [9], or Go [10]). In contrast, less attention has been given to developing autonomous machines that establish mutually cooperative relationships with people who may not share the machine's preferences. A main challenge has been that human cooperation does not require sheer computational power, but rather relies on intuition [11], cultural norms [12], emotions and signals [13, 14, 15, 16], and pre-evolved dispositions toward cooperation [17], common-sense mechanisms that are difficult to encode in machines for arbitrary contexts. Here, we combine a state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithm with novel mechanisms for generating and acting on signals to produce a new learning algorithm that cooperates with people and other machines at levels that rival human cooperation in a variety of two-player repeated stochastic games. This is the first general-purpose algorithm that is capable, given a description of a previously unseen game environment, of learning to cooperate with people within short timescales in scenarios previously unanticipated by algorithm designers. This is achieved without complex opponent modeling or higher-order theories of mind, thus showing that flexible, fast, and general human-machine cooperation is computationally achievable using a non-trivial, but ultimately simple, set of algorithmic mechanisms.
△ Less
Submitted 21 February, 2018; v1 submitted 17 March, 2017;
originally announced March 2017.
-
The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
Authors:
Jean-François Bonnefon,
Azim Shariff,
Iyad Rahwan
Abstract:
Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils-for example, running over pedestrians or sacrificing itself and its passenger to save them. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants to six MTurk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that sacrifice the…
▽ More
Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils-for example, running over pedestrians or sacrificing itself and its passenger to save them. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants to six MTurk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good), and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. They would disapprove of enforcing utilitarian AVs, and would be less willing to buy such a regulated AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.
△ Less
Submitted 4 July, 2016; v1 submitted 12 October, 2015;
originally announced October 2015.
-
Analytical reasoning task reveals limits of social learning in networks
Authors:
Iyad Rahwan,
Dmytro Krasnoshtan,
Azim Shariff,
Jean-Francois Bonnefon
Abstract:
Social learning -by observing and copying others- is a highly successful cultural mechanism for adaptation, outperforming individual information acquisition and experience. Here, we investigate social learning in the context of the uniquely human capacity for reflective, analytical reasoning. A hallmark of the human mind is our ability to engage analytical reasoning, and suppress false associative…
▽ More
Social learning -by observing and copying others- is a highly successful cultural mechanism for adaptation, outperforming individual information acquisition and experience. Here, we investigate social learning in the context of the uniquely human capacity for reflective, analytical reasoning. A hallmark of the human mind is our ability to engage analytical reasoning, and suppress false associative intuitions. Through a set of lab-based network experiments, we find that social learning fails to propagate this cognitive strategy. When people make false intuitive conclusions, and are exposed to the analytic output of their peers, they recognize and adopt this correct output. But they fail to engage analytical reasoning in similar subsequent tasks. Thus, humans exhibit an 'unreflective copying bias,' which limits their social learning to the output, rather than the process, of their peers' reasoning -even when doing so requires minimal effort and no technical skill. In contrast to much recent work on observation-based social learning, which emphasizes the propagation of successful behavior through copying, our findings identify a limit on the power of social networks in situations that require analytical reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2014;
originally announced June 2014.
