亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Cross-validation is a widely-used technique to estimate prediction error, but its behavior is complex and not fully understood. Ideally, one would like to think that cross-validation estimates the prediction error for the model at hand, fit to the training data. We prove that this is not the case for the linear model fit by ordinary least squares; rather it estimates the average prediction error of models fit on other unseen training sets drawn from the same population. We further show that this phenomenon occurs for most popular estimates of prediction error, including data splitting, bootstrapping, and Mallow's Cp. Next, the standard confidence intervals for prediction error derived from cross-validation may have coverage far below the desired level. Because each data point is used for both training and testing, there are correlations among the measured accuracies for each fold, and so the usual estimate of variance is too small. We introduce a nested cross-validation scheme to estimate this variance more accurately, and we show empirically that this modification leads to intervals with approximately correct coverage in many examples where traditional cross-validation intervals fail.

Deep neural networks (DNN) have made impressive progress in the interpretation of image data, so that it is conceivable and to some degree realistic to use them in safety critical applications like automated driving. From an ethical standpoint, the AI algorithm should take into account the vulnerability of objects or subjects on the street that ranges from "not at all", e.g. the road itself, to "high vulnerability" of pedestrians. One way to take this into account is to define the cost of confusion of one semantic category with another and use cost-based decision rules for the interpretation of probabilities, which are the output of DNNs. However, it is an open problem how to define the cost structure, who should be in charge to do that, and thereby define what AI-algorithms will actually "see". As one possible answer, we follow a participatory approach and set up an online survey to ask the public to define the cost structure. We present the survey design and the data acquired along with an evaluation that also distinguishes between perspective (car passenger vs. external traffic participant) and gender. Using simulation based $F$-tests, we find highly significant differences between the groups. These differences have consequences on the reliable detection of pedestrians in a safety critical distance to the self-driving car. We discuss the ethical problems that are related to this approach and also discuss the problems emerging from human-machine interaction through the survey from a psychological point of view. Finally, we include comments from industry leaders in the field of AI safety on the applicability of survey based elements in the design of AI functionalities in automated driving.

Here, I ask what we can learn about how how gender affects how people engage with robots. I review 46 empirical studies of social robots, published 2018 or earlier, which report on the gender of their participants or the perceived or intended gender of the robot, or both, and perform some analysis with respect to either participant or robot gender. From these studies, I find that robots are by default perceived as male, that robots absorb human gender stereotypes, and that men tend to engage with robots more than women. I highlight open questions about how such gender effects may be different in younger participants, and whether one should seek to match the gender of the robot to the gender of the participant to ensure positive interaction outcomes. I conclude by suggesting that future research should: include gender diverse participant pools, include non-binary participants, rely on self-identification for discerning gender rather than researcher perception, control for known covariates of gender, test for different study outcomes with respect to gender, and test whether the robot used was perceived as gendered by participants. I include an appendix with a narrative summary of gender-relevant findings from each of the 46 papers to aid in future literature reviews.

As automated decision-making solutions are increasingly applied to all aspects of everyday life, capabilities to generate meaningful explanations for a variety of stakeholders (i.e., decision-makers, recipients of decisions, auditors, regulators...) become crucial. In this paper, we present a taxonomy of explanations that was developed as part of a holistic 'Explainability-by-Design' approach for the purposes of the project PLEAD. The taxonomy was built with a view to produce explanations for a wide range of requirements stemming from a variety of regulatory frameworks or policies set at the organizational level either to translate high-level compliance requirements or to meet business needs. The taxonomy comprises nine dimensions. It is used as a stand-alone classifier of explanations conceived as detective controls, in order to aid supportive automated compliance strategies. A machinereadable format of the taxonomy is provided in the form of a light ontology and the benefits of starting the Explainability-by-Design journey with such a taxonomy are demonstrated through a series of examples.

We introduce OmniXAI (short for Omni eXplainable AI), an open-source Python library of eXplainable AI (XAI), which offers omni-way explainable AI capabilities and various interpretable machine learning techniques to address the pain points of understanding and interpreting the decisions made by machine learning (ML) in practice. OmniXAI aims to be a one-stop comprehensive library that makes explainable AI easy for data scientists, ML researchers and practitioners who need explanation for various types of data, models and explanation methods at different stages of ML process (data exploration, feature engineering, model development, evaluation, and decision-making, etc). In particular, our library includes a rich family of explanation methods integrated in a unified interface, which supports multiple data types (tabular data, images, texts, time-series), multiple types of ML models (traditional ML in Scikit-learn and deep learning models in PyTorch/TensorFlow), and a range of diverse explanation methods including "model-specific" and "model-agnostic" ones (such as feature-attribution explanation, counterfactual explanation, gradient-based explanation, etc). For practitioners, the library provides an easy-to-use unified interface to generate the explanations for their applications by only writing a few lines of codes, and also a GUI dashboard for visualization of different explanations for more insights about decisions. In this technical report, we present OmniXAI's design principles, system architectures, and major functionalities, and also demonstrate several example use cases across different types of data, tasks, and models.

In the past decade, we have witnessed the rise of deep learning to dominate the field of artificial intelligence. Advances in artificial neural networks alongside corresponding advances in hardware accelerators with large memory capacity, together with the availability of large datasets enabled researchers and practitioners alike to train and deploy sophisticated neural network models that achieve state-of-the-art performance on tasks across several fields spanning computer vision, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning. However, as these neural networks become bigger, more complex, and more widely used, fundamental problems with current deep learning models become more apparent. State-of-the-art deep learning models are known to suffer from issues that range from poor robustness, inability to adapt to novel task settings, to requiring rigid and inflexible configuration assumptions. Ideas from collective intelligence, in particular concepts from complex systems such as self-organization, emergent behavior, swarm optimization, and cellular systems tend to produce solutions that are robust, adaptable, and have less rigid assumptions about the environment configuration. It is therefore natural to see these ideas incorporated into newer deep learning methods. In this review, we will provide a historical context of neural network research's involvement with complex systems, and highlight several active areas in modern deep learning research that incorporate the principles of collective intelligence to advance its current capabilities. To facilitate a bi-directional flow of ideas, we also discuss work that utilize modern deep learning models to help advance complex systems research. We hope this review can serve as a bridge between complex systems and deep learning communities to facilitate the cross pollination of ideas and foster new collaborations across disciplines.

Autonomous driving has achieved a significant milestone in research and development over the last decade. There is increasing interest in the field as the deployment of self-operating vehicles on roads promises safer and more ecologically friendly transportation systems. With the rise of computationally powerful artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, autonomous vehicles can sense their environment with high precision, make safe real-time decisions, and operate more reliably without human interventions. However, intelligent decision-making in autonomous cars is not generally understandable by humans in the current state of the art, and such deficiency hinders this technology from being socially acceptable. Hence, aside from making safe real-time decisions, the AI systems of autonomous vehicles also need to explain how these decisions are constructed in order to be regulatory compliant across many jurisdictions. Our study sheds a comprehensive light on developing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches for autonomous vehicles. In particular, we make the following contributions. First, we provide a thorough overview of the present gaps with respect to explanations in the state-of-the-art autonomous vehicle industry. We then show the taxonomy of explanations and explanation receivers in this field. Thirdly, we propose a framework for an architecture of end-to-end autonomous driving systems and justify the role of XAI in both debugging and regulating such systems. Finally, as future research directions, we provide a field guide on XAI approaches for autonomous driving that can improve operational safety and transparency towards achieving public approval by regulators, manufacturers, and all engaged stakeholders.

Edge intelligence refers to a set of connected systems and devices for data collection, caching, processing, and analysis in locations close to where data is captured based on artificial intelligence. The aim of edge intelligence is to enhance the quality and speed of data processing and protect the privacy and security of the data. Although recently emerged, spanning the period from 2011 to now, this field of research has shown explosive growth over the past five years. In this paper, we present a thorough and comprehensive survey on the literature surrounding edge intelligence. We first identify four fundamental components of edge intelligence, namely edge caching, edge training, edge inference, and edge offloading, based on theoretical and practical results pertaining to proposed and deployed systems. We then aim for a systematic classification of the state of the solutions by examining research results and observations for each of the four components and present a taxonomy that includes practical problems, adopted techniques, and application goals. For each category, we elaborate, compare and analyse the literature from the perspectives of adopted techniques, objectives, performance, advantages and drawbacks, etc. This survey article provides a comprehensive introduction to edge intelligence and its application areas. In addition, we summarise the development of the emerging research field and the current state-of-the-art and discuss the important open issues and possible theoretical and technical solutions.

Interest in the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence has been growing for decades and has accelerated recently. As Artificial Intelligence models have become more complex, and often more opaque, with the incorporation of complex machine learning techniques, explainability has become more critical. Recently, researchers have been investigating and tackling explainability with a user-centric focus, looking for explanations to consider trustworthiness, comprehensibility, explicit provenance, and context-awareness. In this chapter, we leverage our survey of explanation literature in Artificial Intelligence and closely related fields and use these past efforts to generate a set of explanation types that we feel reflect the expanded needs of explanation for today's artificial intelligence applications. We define each type and provide an example question that would motivate the need for this style of explanation. We believe this set of explanation types will help future system designers in their generation and prioritization of requirements and further help generate explanations that are better aligned to users' and situational needs.

There is a resurgent interest in developing intelligent open-domain dialog systems due to the availability of large amounts of conversational data and the recent progress on neural approaches to conversational AI. Unlike traditional task-oriented bots, an open-domain dialog system aims to establish long-term connections with users by satisfying the human need for communication, affection, and social belonging. This paper reviews the recent works on neural approaches that are devoted to addressing three challenges in developing such systems: semantics, consistency, and interactiveness. Semantics requires a dialog system to not only understand the content of the dialog but also identify user's social needs during the conversation. Consistency requires the system to demonstrate a consistent personality to win users trust and gain their long-term confidence. Interactiveness refers to the system's ability to generate interpersonal responses to achieve particular social goals such as entertainment, conforming, and task completion. The works we select to present here is based on our unique views and are by no means complete. Nevertheless, we hope that the discussion will inspire new research in developing more intelligent dialog systems.