Alert button
Picture for Katherine M. Collins

Katherine M. Collins

Alert button

Richard

Getting aligned on representational alignment

Nov 02, 2023
Ilia Sucholutsky, Lukas Muttenthaler, Adrian Weller, Andi Peng, Andreea Bobu, Been Kim, Bradley C. Love, Erin Grant, Iris Groen, Jascha Achterberg, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Katherine M. Collins, Katherine L. Hermann, Kerem Oktar, Klaus Greff, Martin N. Hebart, Nori Jacoby, Qiuyi Zhang, Raja Marjieh, Robert Geirhos, Sherol Chen, Simon Kornblith, Sunayana Rane, Talia Konkle, Thomas P. O'Connell, Thomas Unterthiner, Andrew K. Lampinen, Klaus-Robert Müller, Mariya Toneva, Thomas L. Griffiths

Figure 1 for Getting aligned on representational alignment
Figure 2 for Getting aligned on representational alignment
Figure 3 for Getting aligned on representational alignment
Figure 4 for Getting aligned on representational alignment

Biological and artificial information processing systems form representations that they can use to categorize, reason, plan, navigate, and make decisions. How can we measure the extent to which the representations formed by these diverse systems agree? Do similarities in representations then translate into similar behavior? How can a system's representations be modified to better match those of another system? These questions pertaining to the study of representational alignment are at the heart of some of the most active research areas in cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning. For example, cognitive scientists measure the representational alignment of multiple individuals to identify shared cognitive priors, neuroscientists align fMRI responses from multiple individuals into a shared representational space for group-level analyses, and ML researchers distill knowledge from teacher models into student models by increasing their alignment. Unfortunately, there is limited knowledge transfer between research communities interested in representational alignment, so progress in one field often ends up being rediscovered independently in another. Thus, greater cross-field communication would be advantageous. To improve communication between these fields, we propose a unifying framework that can serve as a common language between researchers studying representational alignment. We survey the literature from all three fields and demonstrate how prior work fits into this framework. Finally, we lay out open problems in representational alignment where progress can benefit all three of these fields. We hope that our work can catalyze cross-disciplinary collaboration and accelerate progress for all communities studying and developing information processing systems. We note that this is a working paper and encourage readers to reach out with their suggestions for future revisions.

* Working paper, changes to be made in upcoming revisions 
Viaarxiv icon

AI for Mathematics: A Cognitive Science Perspective

Oct 19, 2023
Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum

Mathematics is one of the most powerful conceptual systems developed and used by the human species. Dreams of automated mathematicians have a storied history in artificial intelligence (AI). Rapid progress in AI, particularly propelled by advances in large language models (LLMs), has sparked renewed, widespread interest in building such systems. In this work, we reflect on these goals from a \textit{cognitive science} perspective. We call attention to several classical and ongoing research directions from cognitive science, which we believe are valuable for AI practitioners to consider when seeking to build truly human (or superhuman)-level mathematical systems. We close with open discussions and questions that we believe necessitate a multi-disciplinary perspective -- cognitive scientists working in tandem with AI researchers and mathematicians -- as we move toward better mathematical AI systems which not only help us push the frontier of the mathematics, but also offer glimpses into how we as humans are even capable of such great cognitive feats.

Viaarxiv icon

Learning to Receive Help: Intervention-Aware Concept Embedding Models

Sep 29, 2023
Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga, Katherine M. Collins, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Adrian Weller, Zohreh Shams, Mateja Jamnik

Figure 1 for Learning to Receive Help: Intervention-Aware Concept Embedding Models
Figure 2 for Learning to Receive Help: Intervention-Aware Concept Embedding Models
Figure 3 for Learning to Receive Help: Intervention-Aware Concept Embedding Models
Figure 4 for Learning to Receive Help: Intervention-Aware Concept Embedding Models

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) tackle the opacity of neural architectures by constructing and explaining their predictions using a set of high-level concepts. A special property of these models is that they permit concept interventions, wherein users can correct mispredicted concepts and thus improve the model's performance. Recent work, however, has shown that intervention efficacy can be highly dependent on the order in which concepts are intervened on and on the model's architecture and training hyperparameters. We argue that this is rooted in a CBM's lack of train-time incentives for the model to be appropriately receptive to concept interventions. To address this, we propose Intervention-aware Concept Embedding models (IntCEMs), a novel CBM-based architecture and training paradigm that improves a model's receptiveness to test-time interventions. Our model learns a concept intervention policy in an end-to-end fashion from where it can sample meaningful intervention trajectories at train-time. This conditions IntCEMs to effectively select and receive concept interventions when deployed at test-time. Our experiments show that IntCEMs significantly outperform state-of-the-art concept-interpretable models when provided with test-time concept interventions, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach.

* Accepted as a spotlight at the Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023) 
Viaarxiv icon

FeedbackLogs: Recording and Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback into Machine Learning Pipelines

Jul 28, 2023
Matthew Barker, Emma Kallina, Dhananjay Ashok, Katherine M. Collins, Ashley Casovan, Adrian Weller, Ameet Talwalkar, Valerie Chen, Umang Bhatt

Figure 1 for FeedbackLogs: Recording and Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback into Machine Learning Pipelines
Figure 2 for FeedbackLogs: Recording and Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback into Machine Learning Pipelines
Figure 3 for FeedbackLogs: Recording and Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback into Machine Learning Pipelines
Figure 4 for FeedbackLogs: Recording and Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback into Machine Learning Pipelines

Even though machine learning (ML) pipelines affect an increasing array of stakeholders, there is little work on how input from stakeholders is recorded and incorporated. We propose FeedbackLogs, addenda to existing documentation of ML pipelines, to track the input of multiple stakeholders. Each log records important details about the feedback collection process, the feedback itself, and how the feedback is used to update the ML pipeline. In this paper, we introduce and formalise a process for collecting a FeedbackLog. We also provide concrete use cases where FeedbackLogs can be employed as evidence for algorithmic auditing and as a tool to record updates based on stakeholder feedback.

Viaarxiv icon

The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs

Jun 27, 2023
Lance Ying, Katherine M. Collins, Megan Wei, Cedegao E. Zhang, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Lionel Wong

Figure 1 for The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs
Figure 2 for The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs
Figure 3 for The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs
Figure 4 for The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs

Human beings are social creatures. We routinely reason about other agents, and a crucial component of this social reasoning is inferring people's goals as we learn about their actions. In many settings, we can perform intuitive but reliable goal inference from language descriptions of agents, actions, and the background environments. In this paper, we study this process of language driving and influencing social reasoning in a probabilistic goal inference domain. We propose a neuro-symbolic model that carries out goal inference from linguistic inputs of agent scenarios. The "neuro" part is a large language model (LLM) that translates language descriptions to code representations, and the "symbolic" part is a Bayesian inverse planning engine. To test our model, we design and run a human experiment on a linguistic goal inference task. Our model closely matches human response patterns and better predicts human judgements than using an LLM alone.

* To appear at ICML Workshop on Theory of Mind in Communicating Agents 
Viaarxiv icon

Selective Concept Models: Permitting Stakeholder Customisation at Test-Time

Jun 14, 2023
Matthew Barker, Katherine M. Collins, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Adrian Weller, Umang Bhatt

Figure 1 for Selective Concept Models: Permitting Stakeholder Customisation at Test-Time
Figure 2 for Selective Concept Models: Permitting Stakeholder Customisation at Test-Time
Figure 3 for Selective Concept Models: Permitting Stakeholder Customisation at Test-Time
Figure 4 for Selective Concept Models: Permitting Stakeholder Customisation at Test-Time

Concept-based models perform prediction using a set of concepts that are interpretable to stakeholders. However, such models often involve a fixed, large number of concepts, which may place a substantial cognitive load on stakeholders. We propose Selective COncept Models (SCOMs) which make predictions using only a subset of concepts and can be customised by stakeholders at test-time according to their preferences. We show that SCOMs only require a fraction of the total concepts to achieve optimal accuracy on multiple real-world datasets. Further, we collect and release a new dataset, CUB-Sel, consisting of human concept set selections for 900 bird images from the popular CUB dataset. Using CUB-Sel, we show that humans have unique individual preferences for the choice of concepts they prefer to reason about, and struggle to identify the most theoretically informative concepts. The customisation and concept selection provided by SCOM improves the efficiency of interpretation and intervention for stakeholders.

Viaarxiv icon

Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions

Jun 02, 2023
Katherine M. Collins, Albert Q. Jiang, Simon Frieder, Lionel Wong, Miri Zilka, Umang Bhatt, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Yuhuai Wu, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, William Hart, Timothy Gowers, Wenda Li, Adrian Weller, Mateja Jamnik

Figure 1 for Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions
Figure 2 for Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions
Figure 3 for Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions
Figure 4 for Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions

The standard methodology of evaluating large language models (LLMs) based on static pairs of inputs and outputs is insufficient for developing assistants: this kind of assessments fails to take into account the essential interactive element in their deployment, and therefore limits how we understand language model capabilities. We introduce CheckMate, an adaptable prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate LLMs. We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models~(InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics, with a mixed cohort of participants from undergraduate students to professors of mathematics. We release the resulting interaction and rating dataset, MathConverse. By analysing MathConverse, we derive a preliminary taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness in LLM generations, amongst other findings. Further, we identify useful scenarios and existing issues of GPT-4 in mathematical reasoning through a series of case studies contributed by expert mathematicians. We conclude with actionable takeaways for ML practitioners and mathematicians: models which communicate uncertainty, respond well to user corrections, are more interpretable and concise may constitute better assistants; interactive evaluation is a promising way to continually navigate the capability of these models; humans should be aware of language models' algebraic fallibility, and for that reason discern where they should be used.

Viaarxiv icon

Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies

Apr 13, 2023
Umang Bhatt, Valerie Chen, Katherine M. Collins, Parameswaran Kamalaruban, Emma Kallina, Adrian Weller, Ameet Talwalkar

Figure 1 for Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies
Figure 2 for Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies
Figure 3 for Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies
Figure 4 for Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies

Individual human decision-makers may benefit from different forms of support to improve decision outcomes. However, a key question is which form of support will lead to accurate decisions at a low cost. In this work, we propose learning a decision support policy that, for a given input, chooses which form of support, if any, to provide. We consider decision-makers for whom we have no prior information and formalize learning their respective policies as a multi-objective optimization problem that trades off accuracy and cost. Using techniques from stochastic contextual bandits, we propose $\texttt{THREAD}$, an online algorithm to personalize a decision support policy for each decision-maker, and devise a hyper-parameter tuning strategy to identify a cost-performance trade-off using simulated human behavior. We provide computational experiments to demonstrate the benefits of $\texttt{THREAD}$ compared to offline baselines. We then introduce $\texttt{Modiste}$, an interactive tool that provides $\texttt{THREAD}$ with an interface. We conduct human subject experiments to show how $\texttt{Modiste}$ learns policies personalized to each decision-maker and discuss the nuances of learning decision support policies online for real users.

* Working paper 
Viaarxiv icon

Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems

Mar 22, 2023
Katherine M. Collins, Matthew Barker, Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga, Naveen Raman, Umang Bhatt, Mateja Jamnik, Ilia Sucholutsky, Adrian Weller, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham

Figure 1 for Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems
Figure 2 for Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems
Figure 3 for Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems
Figure 4 for Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems

Placing a human in the loop may abate the risks of deploying AI systems in safety-critical settings (e.g., a clinician working with a medical AI system). However, mitigating risks arising from human error and uncertainty within such human-AI interactions is an important and understudied issue. In this work, we study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based models, a family of AI systems that enable human feedback via concept interventions where an expert intervenes on human-interpretable concepts relevant to the task. Prior work in this space often assumes that humans are oracles who are always certain and correct. Yet, real-world decision-making by humans is prone to occasional mistakes and uncertainty. We study how existing concept-based models deal with uncertain interventions from humans using two novel datasets: UMNIST, a visual dataset with controlled simulated uncertainty based on the MNIST dataset, and CUB-S, a relabeling of the popular CUB concept dataset with rich, densely-annotated soft labels from humans. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses of concept-based systems when handling uncertain interventions. These results allow us to identify several open challenges, which we argue can be tackled through future multidisciplinary research on building interactive uncertainty-aware systems. To facilitate further research, we release a new elicitation platform, UElic, to collect uncertain feedback from humans in collaborative prediction tasks.

Viaarxiv icon