Tag Archives: Responsible AI

HEAL: A framework for health equity assessment of machine learning performance

Posted by Mike Schaekermann, Research Scientist, Google Research, and Ivor Horn, Chief Health Equity Officer & Director, Google Core

Health equity is a major societal concern worldwide with disparities having many causes. These sources include limitations in access to healthcare, differences in clinical treatment, and even fundamental differences in the diagnostic technology. In dermatology for example, skin cancer outcomes are worse for populations such as minorities, those with lower socioeconomic status, or individuals with limited healthcare access. While there is great promise in recent advances in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to help improve healthcare, this transition from research to bedside must be accompanied by a careful understanding of whether and how they impact health equity.

Health equity is defined by public health organizations as fairness of opportunity for everyone to be as healthy as possible. Importantly, equity may be different from equality. For example, people with greater barriers to improving their health may require more or different effort to experience this fair opportunity. Similarly, equity is not fairness as defined in the AI for healthcare literature. Whereas AI fairness often strives for equal performance of the AI technology across different patient populations, this does not center the goal of prioritizing performance with respect to pre-existing health disparities.

Health equity considerations. An intervention (e.g., an ML-based tool, indicated in dark blue) promotes health equity if it helps reduce existing disparities in health outcomes (indicated in lighter blue).

In “Health Equity Assessment of machine Learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study”, published in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, we propose a methodology to quantitatively assess whether ML-based health technologies perform equitably. In other words, does the ML model perform well for those with the worst health outcomes for the condition(s) the model is meant to address? This goal anchors on the principle that health equity should prioritize and measure model performance with respect to disparate health outcomes, which may be due to a number of factors that include structural inequities (e.g., demographic, social, cultural, political, economic, environmental and geographic).


The health equity framework (HEAL)

The HEAL framework proposes a 4-step process to estimate the likelihood that an ML-based health technology performs equitably:

  1. Identify factors associated with health inequities and define tool performance metrics,
  2. Identify and quantify pre-existing health disparities,
  3. Measure the performance of the tool for each subpopulation,
  4. Measure the likelihood that the tool prioritizes performance with respect to health disparities.

The final step’s output is termed the HEAL metric, which quantifies how anticorrelated the ML model’s performance is with health disparities. In other words, does the model perform better with populations that have the worse health outcomes?

This 4-step process is designed to inform improvements for making ML model performance more equitable, and is meant to be iterative and re-evaluated on a regular basis. For example, the availability of health outcomes data in step (2) can inform the choice of demographic factors and brackets in step (1), and the framework can be applied again with new datasets, models and populations.

Framework for Health Equity Assessment of machine Learning performance (HEAL). Our guiding principle is to avoid exacerbating health inequities, and these steps help us identify disparities and assess for inequitable model performance to move towards better outcomes for all.

With this work, we take a step towards encouraging explicit assessment of the health equity considerations of AI technologies, and encourage prioritization of efforts during model development to reduce health inequities for subpopulations exposed to structural inequities that can precipitate disparate outcomes. We should note that the present framework does not model causal relationships and, therefore, cannot quantify the actual impact a new technology will have on reducing health outcome disparities. However, the HEAL metric may help identify opportunities for improvement, where the current performance is not prioritized with respect to pre-existing health disparities.


Case study on a dermatology model

As an illustrative case study, we applied the framework to a dermatology model, which utilizes a convolutional neural network similar to that described in prior work. This example dermatology model was trained to classify 288 skin conditions using a development dataset of 29k cases. The input to the model consists of three photos of a skin concern along with demographic information and a brief structured medical history. The output consists of a ranked list of possible matching skin conditions.

Using the HEAL framework, we evaluated this model by assessing whether it prioritized performance with respect to pre-existing health outcomes. The model was designed to predict possible dermatologic conditions (from a list of hundreds) based on photos of a skin concern and patient metadata. Evaluation of the model is done using a top-3 agreement metric, which quantifies how often the top 3 output conditions match the most likely condition as suggested by a dermatologist panel. The HEAL metric is computed via the anticorrelation of this top-3 agreement with health outcome rankings.

We used a dataset of 5,420 teledermatology cases, enriched for diversity in age, sex and race/ethnicity, to retrospectively evaluate the model’s HEAL metric. The dataset consisted of “store-and-forward” cases from patients of 20 years or older from primary care providers in the USA and skin cancer clinics in Australia. Based on a review of the literature, we decided to explore race/ethnicity, sex and age as potential factors of inequity, and used sampling techniques to ensure that our evaluation dataset had sufficient representation of all race/ethnicity, sex and age groups. To quantify pre-existing health outcomes for each subgroup we relied on measurements from public databases endorsed by the World Health Organization, such as Years of Life Lost (YLLs) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs; years of life lost plus years lived with disability).

HEAL metric for all dermatologic conditions across race/ethnicity subpopulations, including health outcomes (YLLs per 100,000), model performance (top-3 agreement), and rankings for health outcomes and tool performance.
(* Higher is better; measures the likelihood the model performs equitably with respect to the axes in this table.)
HEAL metric for all dermatologic conditions across sexes, including health outcomes (DALYs per 100,000), model performance (top-3 agreement), and rankings for health outcomes and tool performance. (* As above.)
Our analysis estimated that the model was 80.5% likely to perform equitably across race/ethnicity subgroups and 92.1% likely to perform equitably across sexes.

However, while the model was likely to perform equitably across age groups for cancer conditions specifically, we discovered that it had room for improvement across age groups for non-cancer conditions. For example, those 70+ have the poorest health outcomes related to non-cancer skin conditions, yet the model didn't prioritize performance for this subgroup.

HEAL metrics for all cancer and non-cancer dermatologic conditions across age groups, including health outcomes (DALYs per 100,000), model performance (top-3 agreement), and rankings for health outcomes and tool performance. (* As above.)

Putting things in context

For holistic evaluation, the HEAL metric cannot be employed in isolation. Instead this metric should be contextualized alongside many other factors ranging from computational efficiency and data privacy to ethical values, and aspects that may influence the results (e.g., selection bias or differences in representativeness of the evaluation data across demographic groups).

As an adversarial example, the HEAL metric can be artificially improved by deliberately reducing model performance for the most advantaged subpopulation until performance for that subpopulation is worse than all others. For illustrative purposes, given subpopulations A and B where A has worse health outcomes than B, consider the choice between two models: Model 1 (M1) performs 5% better for subpopulation A than for subpopulation B. Model 2 (M2) performs 5% worse on subpopulation A than B. The HEAL metric would be higher for M1 because it prioritizes performance on a subpopulation with worse outcomes. However, M1 may have absolute performances of just 75% and 70% for subpopulations A and B respectively, while M2 has absolute performances of 75% and 80% for subpopulations A and B respectively. Choosing M1 over M2 would lead to worse overall performance for all subpopulations because some subpopulations are worse-off while no subpopulation is better-off.

Accordingly, the HEAL metric should be used alongside a Pareto condition (discussed further in the paper), which restricts model changes so that outcomes for each subpopulation are either unchanged or improved compared to the status quo, and performance does not worsen for any subpopulation.

The HEAL framework, in its current form, assesses the likelihood that an ML-based model prioritizes performance for subpopulations with respect to pre-existing health disparities for specific subpopulations. This differs from the goal of understanding whether ML will reduce disparities in outcomes across subpopulations in reality. Specifically, modeling improvements in outcomes requires a causal understanding of steps in the care journey that happen both before and after use of any given model. Future research is needed to address this gap.


Conclusion

The HEAL framework enables a quantitative assessment of the likelihood that health AI technologies prioritize performance with respect to health disparities. The case study demonstrates how to apply the framework in the dermatological domain, indicating a high likelihood that model performance is prioritized with respect to health disparities across sex and race/ethnicity, but also revealing the potential for improvements for non-cancer conditions across age. The case study also illustrates limitations in the ability to apply all recommended aspects of the framework (e.g., mapping societal context, availability of data), thus highlighting the complexity of health equity considerations of ML-based tools.

This work is a proposed approach to address a grand challenge for AI and health equity, and may provide a useful evaluation framework not only during model development, but during pre-implementation and real-world monitoring stages, e.g., in the form of health equity dashboards. We hold that the strength of the HEAL framework is in its future application to various AI tools and use cases and its refinement in the process. Finally, we acknowledge that a successful approach towards understanding the impact of AI technologies on health equity needs to be more than a set of metrics. It will require a set of goals agreed upon by a community that represents those who will be most impacted by a model.


Acknowledgements

The research described here is joint work across many teams at Google. We are grateful to all our co-authors: Terry Spitz, Malcolm Pyles, Heather Cole-Lewis, Ellery Wulczyn, Stephen R. Pfohl, Donald Martin, Jr., Ronnachai Jaroensri, Geoff Keeling, Yuan Liu, Stephanie Farquhar, Qinghan Xue, Jenna Lester, Cían Hughes, Patricia Strachan, Fraser Tan, Peggy Bui, Craig H. Mermel, Lily H. Peng, Yossi Matias, Greg S. Corrado, Dale R. Webster, Sunny Virmani, Christopher Semturs, Yun Liu, and Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen. We also thank Lauren Winer, Sami Lachgar, Ting-An Lin, Aaron Loh, Morgan Du, Jenny Rizk, Renee Wong, Ashley Carrick, Preeti Singh, Annisah Um'rani, Jessica Schrouff, Alexander Brown, and Anna Iurchenko for their support of this project.

Source: Google AI Blog


Advances in private training for production on-device language models

Posted by Zheng Xu, Research Scientist, and Yanxiang Zhang, Software Engineer, Google

Language models (LMs) trained to predict the next word given input text are the key technology for many applications [1, 2]. In Gboard, LMs are used to improve users’ typing experience by supporting features like next word prediction (NWP), Smart Compose, smart completion and suggestion, slide to type, and proofread. Deploying models on users’ devices rather than enterprise servers has advantages like lower latency and better privacy for model usage. While training on-device models directly from user data effectively improves the utility performance for applications such as NWP and smart text selection, protecting the privacy of user data for model training is important.

Gboard features powered by on-device language models.

In this blog we discuss how years of research advances now power the private training of Gboard LMs, since the proof-of-concept development of federated learning (FL) in 2017 and formal differential privacy (DP) guarantees in 2022. FL enables mobile phones to collaboratively learn a model while keeping all the training data on device, and DP provides a quantifiable measure of data anonymization. Formally, DP is often characterized by (ε, δ) with smaller values representing stronger guarantees. Machine learning (ML) models are considered to have reasonable DP guarantees for ε=10 and strong DP guarantees for ε=1 when δ is small.

As of today, all NWP neural network LMs in Gboard are trained with FL with formal DP guarantees, and all future launches of Gboard LMs trained on user data require DP. These 30+ Gboard on-device LMs are launched in 7+ languages and 15+ countries, and satisfy (ɛ, δ)-DP guarantees of small δ of 10-10 and ɛ between 0.994 and 13.69. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest known deployment of user-level DP in production at Google or anywhere, and the first time a strong DP guarantee of ɛ < 1 is announced for models trained directly on user data.


Privacy principles and practices in Gboard

In “Private Federated Learning in Gboard”, we discussed how different privacy principles are currently reflected in production models, including:

  • Transparency and user control: We provide disclosure of what data is used, what purpose it is used for, how it is processed in various channels, and how Gboard users can easily configure the data usage in learning models.
  • Data minimization: FL immediately aggregates only focused updates that improve a specific model. Secure aggregation (SecAgg) is an encryption method to further guarantee that only aggregated results of the ephemeral updates can be accessed.
  • Data anonymization: DP is applied by the server to prevent models from memorizing the unique information in individual user’s training data.
  • Auditability and verifiability: We have made public the key algorithmic approaches and privacy accounting in open-sourced code (TFF aggregator, TFP DPQuery, DP accounting, and FL system).

A brief history

In recent years, FL has become the default method for training Gboard on-device LMs from user data. In 2020, a DP mechanism that clips and adds noise to model updates was used to prevent memorization for training the Spanish LM in Spain, which satisfies finite DP guarantees (Tier 3 described in “How to DP-fy ML“ guide). In 2022, with the help of the DP-Follow-The-Regularized-Leader (DP-FTRL) algorithm, the Spanish LM became the first production neural network trained directly on user data announced with a formal DP guarantee of (ε=8.9, δ=10-10)-DP (equivalent to the reported ρ=0.81 zero-Concentrated-Differential-Privacy), and therefore satisfies reasonable privacy guarantees (Tier 2).


Differential privacy by default in federated learning

In “Federated Learning of Gboard Language Models with Differential Privacy”, we announced that all the NWP neural network LMs in Gboard have DP guarantees, and all future launches of Gboard LMs trained on user data require DP guarantees. DP is enabled in FL by applying the following practices:

  • Pre-train the model with the multilingual C4 dataset.
  • Via simulation experiments on public datasets, find a large DP-noise-to-signal ratio that allows for high utility. Increasing the number of clients contributing to one round of model update improves privacy while keeping the noise ratio fixed for good utility, up to the point the DP target is met, or the maximum allowed by the system and the size of the population.
  • Configure the parameter to restrict the frequency each client can contribute (e.g., once every few days) based on computation budget and estimated population in the FL system.
  • Run DP-FTRL training with limits on the magnitude of per-device updates chosen either via adaptive clipping, or fixed based on experience.

SecAgg can be additionally applied by adopting the advances in improving computation and communication for scales and sensitivity.

Federated learning with differential privacy and (SecAgg).

Reporting DP guarantees

The DP guarantees of launched Gboard NWP LMs are visualized in the barplot below. The x-axis shows LMs labeled by language-locale and trained on corresponding populations; the y-axis shows the ε value when δ is fixed to a small value of 10-10 for (ε, δ)-DP (lower is better). The utility of these models are either significantly better than previous non-neural models in production, or comparable with previous LMs without DP, measured based on user-interactions metrics during A/B testing. For example, by applying the best practices, the DP guarantee of the Spanish model in Spain is improved from ε=8.9 to ε=5.37. SecAgg is additionally used for training the Spanish model in Spain and English model in the US. More details of the DP guarantees are reported in the appendix following the guidelines outlined in “How to DP-fy ML”.


Towards stronger DP guarantees

The ε~10 DP guarantees of many launched LMs are already considered reasonable for ML models in practice, while the journey of DP FL in Gboard continues for improving user typing experience while protecting data privacy. We are excited to announce that, for the first time, production LMs of Portuguese in Brazil and Spanish in Latin America are trained and launched with a DP guarantee of ε ≤ 1, which satisfies Tier 1 strong privacy guarantees. Specifically, the (ε=0.994, δ=10-10)-DP guarantee is achieved by running the advanced Matrix Factorization DP-FTRL (MF-DP-FTRL) algorithm, with 12,000+ devices participating in every training round of server model update larger than the common setting of 6500+ devices, and a carefully configured policy to restrict each client to at most participate twice in the total 2000 rounds of training in 14 days in the large Portuguese user population of Brazil. Using a similar setting, the es-US Spanish LM was trained in a large population combining multiple countries in Latin America to achieve (ε=0.994, δ=10-10)-DP. The ε ≤ 1 es-US model significantly improved the utility in many countries, and launched in Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Venezuela. For the smaller population in Spain, the DP guarantee of es-ES LM is improved from ε=5.37 to ε=3.42 by only replacing DP-FTRL with MF-DP-FTRL without increasing the number of devices participating every round. More technical details are disclosed in the colab for privacy accounting.

DP guarantees for Gboard NWP LMs (the purple bar represents the first es-ES launch of ε=8.9; cyan bars represent privacy improvements for models trained with MF-DP-FTRL; tiers are from “How to DP-fy ML“ guide; en-US* and es-ES* are additionally trained with SecAgg).

Discussion and next steps

Our experience suggests that DP can be achieved in practice through system algorithm co-design on client participation, and that both privacy and utility can be strong when populations are large and a large number of devices' contributions are aggregated. Privacy-utility-computation trade-offs can be improved by using public data, the new MF-DP-FTRL algorithm, and tightening accounting. With these techniques, a strong DP guarantee of ε ≤ 1 is possible but still challenging. Active research on empirical privacy auditing [1, 2] suggests that DP models are potentially more private than the worst-case DP guarantees imply. While we keep pushing the frontier of algorithms, which dimension of privacy-utility-computation should be prioritized?

We are actively working on all privacy aspects of ML, including extending DP-FTRL to distributed DP and improving auditability and verifiability. Trusted Execution Environment opens the opportunity for substantially increasing the model size with verifiable privacy. The recent breakthrough in large LMs (LLMs) motivates us to rethink the usage of public information in private training and more future interactions between LLMs, on-device LMs, and Gboard production.


Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Peter Kairouz, Brendan McMahan, and Daniel Ramage for their early feedback on the blog post itself, Shaofeng Li and Tom Small for helping with the animated figures, and the teams at Google that helped with algorithm design, infrastructure implementation, and production maintenance. The collaborators below directly contribute to the presented results:

Research and algorithm development: Galen Andrew, Stanislav Chiknavaryan, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Arun Ganesh, Peter Kairouz, Ryan McKenna, H. Brendan McMahan, Jesse Rosenstock, Timon Van Overveldt, Keith Rush, Shuang Song, Thomas Steinke, Abhradeep Guha Thakurta, Om Thakkar, and Yuanbo Zhang.

Infrastructure, production and leadership support: Mingqing Chen, Stefan Dierauf, Billy Dou, Hubert Eichner, Zachary Garrett, Jeremy Gillula, Jianpeng Hou, Hui Li, Xu Liu, Wenzhi Mao, Brett McLarnon, Mengchen Pei, Daniel Ramage, Swaroop Ramaswamy, Haicheng Sun, Andreas Terzis, Yun Wang, Shanshan Wu, Yu Xiao, and Shumin Zhai.

Source: Google AI Blog


Building Open Models Responsibly in the Gemini Era

Google has long believed that open technology is not only good for our company, but good for the industry, consumers, and the world. We’ve released open-source projects like Android and Chromium that transformed access to mobile and web technologies, and have done the same in AI with Transformers, TensorFlow, and AlphaFold. The release of our Gemma family of open models is a next step in how we’re deepening our commitment to open technology alongside an industry-leading safe, responsible approach. At the same time, the rapidly evolving nature of AI raises important considerations for how to enable safety-aligned open models: an approach that supports broad innovation while promoting safe uses.

A benefit of open source is that once it is released, its license gives users full creative autonomy. This is a powerful guarantee of technology access for developers and end users. Another benefit is that open-source technology can be modified to fit the unique use case of the end user, without restriction.

In the hands of a malicious actor, however, the lack of restrictions can raise risks. Computing has been through similar cycles before, addressing issues such as protecting users of the open internet, handling cryptography, and addressing open-source software security. We now face this challenge with AI. Below we share the approach we took to openly releasing Gemma models, and the advancements in open model safety we hope to accelerate.


Providing access to Gemma open models

Today, Gemma models are being released as what the industry collectively has begun to refer to as “open models.” Open models feature free access to the model weights, but terms of use, redistribution, and variant ownership vary according to a model’s specific terms of use, which may not be based on an open-source license. The Gemma models’ terms of use make them freely available for individual developers, researchers, and commercial users for access and redistribution. Users are also free to create and publish model variants. In using Gemma models, developers agree to avoid harmful uses, reflecting our commitment to developing AI responsibly while increasing access to this technology.

We’re precise about the language we’re using to describe Gemma models because we’re proud to enable responsible AI access and innovation, and we’re equally proud supporters of open source. The definition of "Open Source" has been invaluable to computing and innovation because of requirements for redistribution and derived works, and against discrimination. These requirements enable cross-industry collaboration, individual innovation and entrepreneurship, and shared research to happen with exponential effects.

However, existing open-source concepts can’t always be directly applied to AI systems, which raises questions on how to use open-source licenses with AI. It’s important that we carry forward open principles that have made the sea-change we’re experiencing with AI possible while clarifying the concept of open-source AI and addressing concepts like derived work and author attribution.


Taking a comprehensive approach to releasing Gemma safely and responsibly

Licensing and terms of use are only one part of the evaluations, technical tools, and considered decision-making that went into aligning this release with our responsible AI Principles. Our approach involved:

  • Systematic internal review in accordance with our AI Principles: Consistent with our AI Principles, we release models only when we have determined the benefits are significant, and the risks of misuse are low or can be mitigated. We take that same approach to open models, incorporating a balance of the benefits of wider access to a particular model as well as the risks of misuse and how we can mitigate them. With Gemma, we considered the increased AI research and innovation by us and many others in the community, the access to AI technology the models could bring, and what access was needed to support these use cases.
  • A high evaluation bar: Gemma models underwent thorough evaluations, and were held to a higher bar for evaluating risk of abuse or harm than our proprietary models, given the more limited mitigations currently available for open models. These evaluations cover a broad range of responsible AI areas, including safety, fairness, privacy, societal risk, as well as capabilities such as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) risks, cybersecurity, and autonomous replication. As described in our technical report, the Gemma models exhibit state-of-the-art safety performance in human side-by-side evaluations.
  • Responsibility tools for developers: As we release the Gemma models, we are also releasing a Responsible Generative AI Toolkit for developers, providing guidance and tools to help them create safer AI applications.

We continue to evolve our approach. As we build these frameworks further, we will proceed thoughtfully and incorporate what we learn into future model assessments. We will continue to explore the full range of access mechanisms, with benefits and risk mitigation in mind, including API-based access and staged releases.


Advancing open model safety together

Many of today’s AI safety tools are designed for systems where the design approach assumes restricted access and redistribution, as well as auxiliary controls like query filters. Similarly, much of the AI safety research for improving mitigations takes on the design assumptions of those systems. Just as we have created unique threat models and solutions for other open technology, we are developing safety and security tools appropriate for the differences of openly available AI.

As models become more and more capable, we are conducting research and investing in rigorous safety evaluation, testing, and mitigations for open models. We are also actively participating in conversations with policymakers and open-source community leaders on how the industry should approach this technology. This challenge is multifaceted, just like AI systems themselves. Model-sharing platforms like Hugging Face and Kaggle, where developers inspire each other with novel model iterations, play a critical role in efforts to develop open models safely; there is also a role for the cybersecurity community to contribute learnings and best practices.

Building those solutions requires access to open models, sharing innovations and improvements. We believe sharing the Gemma models will not just help increase access to AI technology, but also help the industry develop new approaches to safety and responsibility.

As developers adopt Gemma models and other safety-aligned open models, we look forward to working with the open-source community to develop more solutions for responsible approaches to AI in the open ecosystem. A global diversity of experiences, perspectives, and opportunities will help build safe and responsible AI that works for everyone.

By Anne Bertucio – Sr Program Manager, Open Source Programs Office; Helen King – Sr Director of Responsibility, Google DeepMind

DP-Auditorium: A flexible library for auditing differential privacy

Posted by Mónica Ribero Díaz, Research Scientist, Google Research

Differential privacy (DP) is a property of randomized mechanisms that limit the influence of any individual user’s information while processing and analyzing data. DP offers a robust solution to address growing concerns about data protection, enabling technologies across industries and government applications (e.g., the US census) without compromising individual user identities. As its adoption increases, it’s important to identify the potential risks of developing mechanisms with faulty implementations. Researchers have recently found errors in the mathematical proofs of private mechanisms, and their implementations. For example, researchers compared six sparse vector technique (SVT) variations and found that only two of the six actually met the asserted privacy guarantee. Even when mathematical proofs are correct, the code implementing the mechanism is vulnerable to human error.

However, practical and efficient DP auditing is challenging primarily due to the inherent randomness of the mechanisms and the probabilistic nature of the tested guarantees. In addition, a range of guarantee types exist, (e.g., pure DP, approximate DP, Rényi DP, and concentrated DP), and this diversity contributes to the complexity of formulating the auditing problem. Further, debugging mathematical proofs and code bases is an intractable task given the volume of proposed mechanisms. While ad hoc testing techniques exist under specific assumptions of mechanisms, few efforts have been made to develop an extensible tool for testing DP mechanisms.

To that end, in “DP-Auditorium: A Large Scale Library for Auditing Differential Privacy”, we introduce an open source library for auditing DP guarantees with only black-box access to a mechanism (i.e., without any knowledge of the mechanism’s internal properties). DP-Auditorium is implemented in Python and provides a flexible interface that allows contributions to continuously improve its testing capabilities. We also introduce new testing algorithms that perform divergence optimization over function spaces for Rényi DP, pure DP, and approximate DP. We demonstrate that DP-Auditorium can efficiently identify DP guarantee violations, and suggest which tests are most suitable for detecting particular bugs under various privacy guarantees.


DP guarantees

The output of a DP mechanism is a sample drawn from a probability distribution (M (D)) that satisfies a mathematical property ensuring the privacy of user data. A DP guarantee is thus tightly related to properties between pairs of probability distributions. A mechanism is differentially private if the probability distributions determined by M on dataset D and a neighboring dataset D’, which differ by only one record, are indistinguishable under a given divergence metric.

For example, the classical approximate DP definition states that a mechanism is approximately DP with parameters (ε, δ) if the hockey-stick divergence of order eε, between M(D) and M(D’), is at most δ. Pure DP is a special instance of approximate DP where δ = 0. Finally, a mechanism is considered Rényi DP with parameters (𝛼, ε) if the Rényi divergence of order 𝛼, is at most ε (where ε is a small positive value). In these three definitions, ε is not interchangeable but intuitively conveys the same concept; larger values of ε imply larger divergences between the two distributions or less privacy, since the two distributions are easier to distinguish.


DP-Auditorium

DP-Auditorium comprises two main components: property testers and dataset finders. Property testers take samples from a mechanism evaluated on specific datasets as input and aim to identify privacy guarantee violations in the provided datasets. Dataset finders suggest datasets where the privacy guarantee may fail. By combining both components, DP-Auditorium enables (1) automated testing of diverse mechanisms and privacy definitions and, (2) detection of bugs in privacy-preserving mechanisms. We implement various private and non-private mechanisms, including simple mechanisms that compute the mean of records and more complex mechanisms, such as different SVT and gradient descent mechanism variants.

Property testers determine if evidence exists to reject the hypothesis that a given divergence between two probability distributions, P and Q, is bounded by a prespecified budget determined by the DP guarantee being tested. They compute a lower bound from samples from P and Q, rejecting the property if the lower bound value exceeds the expected divergence. No guarantees are provided if the result is indeed bounded. To test for a range of privacy guarantees, DP-Auditorium introduces three novel testers: (1) HockeyStickPropertyTester, (2) RényiPropertyTester, and (3) MMDPropertyTester. Unlike other approaches, these testers don’t depend on explicit histogram approximations of the tested distributions. They rely on variational representations of the hockey-stick divergence, Rényi divergence, and maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) that enable the estimation of divergences through optimization over function spaces. As a baseline, we implement HistogramPropertyTester, a commonly used approximate DP tester. While our three testers follow a similar approach, for brevity, we focus on the HockeyStickPropertyTester in this post.

Given two neighboring datasets, D and D’, the HockeyStickPropertyTester finds a lower bound,^δ  for the hockey-stick divergence between M(D) and M(D’) that holds with high probability. Hockey-stick divergence enforces that the two distributions M(D) and M(D’) are close under an approximate DP guarantee. Therefore, if a privacy guarantee claims that the hockey-stick divergence is at most δ, and^δ  > δ, then with high probability the divergence is higher than what was promised on D and D’ and the mechanism cannot satisfy the given approximate DP guarantee. The lower bound^δ  is computed as an empirical and tractable counterpart of a variational formulation of the hockey-stick divergence (see the paper for more details). The accuracy of^δ  increases with the number of samples drawn from the mechanism, but decreases as the variational formulation is simplified. We balance these factors in order to ensure that^δ  is both accurate and easy to compute.

Dataset finders use black-box optimization to find datasets D and D’ that maximize^δ, a lower bound on the divergence value δ. Note that black-box optimization techniques are specifically designed for settings where deriving gradients for an objective function may be impractical or even impossible. These optimization techniques oscillate between exploration and exploitation phases to estimate the shape of the objective function and predict areas where the objective can have optimal values. In contrast, a full exploration algorithm, such as the grid search method, searches over the full space of neighboring datasets D and D’. DP-Auditorium implements different dataset finders through the open sourced black-box optimization library Vizier.

Running existing components on a new mechanism only requires defining the mechanism as a Python function that takes an array of data D and a desired number of samples n to be output by the mechanism computed on D. In addition, we provide flexible wrappers for testers and dataset finders that allow practitioners to implement their own testing and dataset search algorithms.


Key results

We assess the effectiveness of DP-Auditorium on five private and nine non-private mechanisms with diverse output spaces. For each property tester, we repeat the test ten times on fixed datasets using different values of ε, and report the number of times each tester identifies privacy bugs. While no tester consistently outperforms the others, we identify bugs that would be missed by previous techniques (HistogramPropertyTester). Note that the HistogramPropertyTester is not applicable to SVT mechanisms.

Number of times each property tester finds the privacy violation for the tested non-private mechanisms. NonDPLaplaceMean and NonDPGaussianMean mechanisms are faulty implementations of the Laplace and Gaussian mechanisms for computing the mean.

We also analyze the implementation of a DP gradient descent algorithm (DP-GD) in TensorFlow that computes gradients of the loss function on private data. To preserve privacy, DP-GD employs a clipping mechanism to bound the l2-norm of the gradients by a value G, followed by the addition of Gaussian noise. This implementation incorrectly assumes that the noise added has a scale of G, while in reality, the scale is sG, where s is a positive scalar. This discrepancy leads to an approximate DP guarantee that holds only for values of s greater than or equal to 1.

We evaluate the effectiveness of property testers in detecting this bug and show that HockeyStickPropertyTester and RényiPropertyTester exhibit superior performance in identifying privacy violations, outperforming MMDPropertyTester and HistogramPropertyTester. Notably, these testers detect the bug even for values of s as high as 0.6. It is worth highlighting that s = 0.5 corresponds to a common error in literature that involves missing a factor of two when accounting for the privacy budget ε. DP-Auditorium successfully captures this bug as shown below. For more details see section 5.6 here.

Estimated divergences and test thresholds for different values of s when testing DP-GD with the HistogramPropertyTester (left) and the HockeyStickPropertyTester (right).

Estimated divergences and test thresholds for different values of s when testing DP-GD with the RényiPropertyTester (left) and the MMDPropertyTester (right)

To test dataset finders, we compute the number of datasets explored before finding a privacy violation. On average, the majority of bugs are discovered in less than 10 calls to dataset finders. Randomized and exploration/exploitation methods are more efficient at finding datasets than grid search. For more details, see the paper.


Conclusion

DP is one of the most powerful frameworks for data protection. However, proper implementation of DP mechanisms can be challenging and prone to errors that cannot be easily detected using traditional unit testing methods. A unified testing framework can help auditors, regulators, and academics ensure that private mechanisms are indeed private.

DP-Auditorium is a new approach to testing DP via divergence optimization over function spaces. Our results show that this type of function-based estimation consistently outperforms previous black-box access testers. Finally, we demonstrate that these function-based estimators allow for a better discovery rate of privacy bugs compared to histogram estimation. By open sourcing DP-Auditorium, we aim to establish a standard for end-to-end testing of new differentially private algorithms.


Acknowledgements

The work described here was done jointly with Andrés Muñoz Medina, William Kong and Umar Syed. We thank Chris Dibak and Vadym Doroshenko for helpful engineering support and interface suggestions for our library.

Source: Google AI Blog


Responsible AI at Google Research: User Experience Team

Posted by Ayça Çakmakli, UX Lead, Google Research, Responsible AI and Human Centered Technology Team

Google’s Responsible AI User Experience (Responsible AI UX) team is a product-minded team embedded within Google Research. This unique positioning requires us to apply responsible AI development practices to our user-centered user experience (UX) design process. In this post, we describe the importance of UX design and responsible AI in product development, and share a few examples of how our team’s capabilities and cross-functional collaborations have led to responsible development across Google.

First, the UX part. We are a multi-disciplinary team of product design experts: designers, engineers, researchers, and strategists who manage the user-centered UX design process from early-phase ideation and problem framing to later-phase user-interface (UI) design, prototyping and refinement. We believe that effective product development occurs when there is clear alignment between significant unmet user needs and a product's primary value proposition, and that this alignment is reliably achieved via a thorough user-centered UX design process.

And second, recognizing generative AI’s (GenAI) potential to significantly impact society, we embrace our role as the primary user advocate as we continue to evolve our UX design process to meet the unique challenges AI poses, maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks. As we navigate through each stage of an AI-powered product design process, we place a heightened emphasis on the ethical, societal, and long-term impact of our decisions. We contribute to the ongoing development of comprehensive safety and inclusivity protocols that define design and deployment guardrails around key issues like content curation, security, privacy, model capabilities, model access, equitability, and fairness that help mitigate GenAI risks.

Responsible AI UX is constantly evolving its user-centered product design process to meet the needs of a GenAI-powered product landscape with greater sensitivity to the needs of users and society and an emphasis on ethical, societal, and long-term impact.

Responsibility in product design is also reflected in the user and societal problems we choose to address and the programs we resource. Thus, we encourage the prioritization of user problems with significant scale and severity to help maximize the positive impact of GenAI technology.

Communication across teams and disciplines is essential to responsible product design. The seamless flow of information and insight from user research teams to product design and engineering teams, and vice versa, is essential to good product development. One of our team’s core objectives is to ensure the practical application of deep user-insight into AI-powered product design decisions at Google by bridging the communication gap between the vast technological expertise of our engineers and the user/societal expertise of our academics, research scientists, and user-centered design research experts. We’ve built a multidisciplinary team with expertise in these areas, deepening our empathy for the communication needs of our audience, and enabling us to better interface between our user & society experts and our technical experts. We create frameworks, guidebooks, prototypes, cheatsheets, and multimedia tools to help bring insights to life for the right people at the right time.



Facilitating responsible GenAI prototyping and development

During collaborations between Responsible AI UX, the People + AI Research (PAIR) initiative and Labs, we identified that prototyping can afford a creative opportunity to engage with large language models (LLM), and is often the first step in GenAI product development. To address the need to introduce LLMs into the prototyping process, we explored a range of different prompting designs. Then, we went out into the field, employing various external, first-person UX design research methodologies to draw out insight and gain empathy for the user’s perspective. Through user/designer co-creation sessions, iteration, and prototyping, we were able to bring internal stakeholders, product managers, engineers, writers, sales, and marketing teams along to ensure that the user point of view was well understood and to reinforce alignment across teams.

The result of this work was MakerSuite, a generative AI platform launched at Google I/O 2023 that enables people, even those without any ML experience, to prototype creatively using LLMs. The team’s first-hand experience with users and understanding of the challenges they face allowed us to incorporate our AI Principles into the MakerSuite product design. Product features like safety filters, for example, enable users to manage outcomes, leading to easier and more responsible product development with MakerSuite.

Because of our close collaboration with product teams, we were able to adapt text-only prototyping to support multimodal interaction with Google AI Studio, an evolution of MakerSuite. Now, Google AI Studio enables developers and non-developers alike to seamlessly leverage Google’s latest Gemini model to merge multiple modality inputs, like text and image, in product explorations. Facilitating product development in this way provides us with the opportunity to better use AI to identify appropriateness of outcomes and unlocks opportunities for developers and non-developers to play with AI sandboxes. Together with our partners, we continue to actively push this effort in the products we support.

Google AI studio enables developers and non-developers to leverage Google Cloud infrastructure and merge multiple modality inputs in their product explorations.


Equitable speech recognition

Multiple external studies, as well as Google’s own research, have identified an unfortunate deficiency in the ability of current speech recognition technology to understand Black speakers on average, relative to White speakers. As multimodal AI tools begin to rely more heavily on speech prompts, this problem will grow and continue to alienate users. To address this problem, the Responsible AI UX team is partnering with world-renowned linguists and scientists at Howard University, a prominent HBCU, to build a high quality African-American English dataset to improve the design of our speech technology products to make them more accessible. Called Project Elevate Black Voices, this effort will allow Howard University to share the dataset with those looking to improve speech technology while establishing a framework for responsible data collection, ensuring the data benefits Black communities. Howard University will retain the ownership and licensing of the dataset and serve as stewards for its responsible use. At Google, we’re providing funding support and collaborating closely with our partners at Howard University to ensure the success of this program.




Equitable computer vision

The Gender Shades project highlighted that computer vision systems struggle to detect people with darker skin tones, and performed particularly poorly for women with darker skin tones. This is largely due to the fact that the datasets used to train these models were not inclusive to a wide range of skin tones. To address this limitation, the Responsible AI UX team has been partnering with sociologist Dr. Ellis Monk to release the Monk Skin Tone Scale (MST), a skin tone scale designed to be more inclusive of the spectrum of skin tones around the world. It provides a tool to assess the inclusivity of datasets and model performance across an inclusive range of skin tones, resulting in features and products that work better for everyone.

We have integrated MST into a range of Google products, such as Search, Google Photos, and others. We also open sourced MST, published our research, described our annotation practices, and shared an example dataset to encourage others to easily integrate it into their products. The Responsible AI UX team continues to collaborate with Dr. Monk, utilizing the MST across multiple product applications and continuing to do international research to ensure that it is globally inclusive.


Consulting & guidance

As teams across Google continue to develop products that leverage the capabilities of GenAI models, our team recognizes that the challenges they face are varied and that market competition is significant. To support teams, we develop actionable assets to facilitate a more streamlined and responsible product design process that considers available resources. We act as a product-focused design consultancy, identifying ways to scale services, share expertise, and apply our design principles more broadley. Our goal is to help all product teams at Google connect significant unmet user needs with technology benefits via great responsible product design.

One way we have been doing this is with the creation of the People + AI Guidebook, an evolving summative resource of many of the responsible design lessons we’ve learned and recommendations we’ve made for internal and external stakeholders. With its forthcoming, rolling updates focusing specifically on how to best design and consider user needs with GenAI, we hope that our internal teams, external stakeholders, and larger community will have useful and actionable guidance at the most critical milestones in the product development journey.

The People + AI Guidebook has six chapters, designed to cover different aspects of the product life cycle.

If you are interested in reading more about Responsible AI UX and how we are specifically thinking about designing responsibly with Generative AI, please check out this Q&A piece.


Acknowledgements

Shout out to our the Responsible AI UX team members: Aaron Donsbach, Alejandra Molina, Courtney Heldreth, Diana Akrong, Ellis Monk, Femi Olanubi, Hope Neveux, Kafayat Abdul, Key Lee, Mahima Pushkarna, Sally Limb, Sarah Post, Sures Kumar Thoddu Srinivasan, Tesh Goyal, Ursula Lauriston, and Zion Mengesha. Special thanks to Michelle Cohn for her contributions to this work.

Source: Google AI Blog


Supporting benchmarks for AI safety with MLCommons

Posted by Anoop Sinha, Technology and Society, and Marian Croak, Google Research, Responsible AI and Human Centered Technology team

Standard benchmarks are agreed upon ways of measuring important product qualities, and they exist in many fields. Some standard benchmarks measure safety: for example, when a car manufacturer touts a “five-star overall safety rating,” they’re citing a benchmark. Standard benchmarks already exist in machine learning (ML) and AI technologies: for instance, the MLCommons Association operates the MLPerf benchmarks that measure the speed of cutting edge AI hardware such as Google’s TPUs. However, though there has been significant work done on AI safety, there are as yet no similar standard benchmarks for AI safety.

We are excited to support a new effort by the non-profit MLCommons Association to develop standard AI safety benchmarks. Developing benchmarks that are effective and trusted is going to require advancing AI safety testing technology and incorporating a broad range of perspectives. The MLCommons effort aims to bring together expert researchers across academia and industry to develop standard benchmarks for measuring the safety of AI systems into scores that everyone can understand. We encourage the whole community, from AI researchers to policy experts, to join us in contributing to the effort.


Why AI safety benchmarks?

Like most advanced technologies, AI has the potential for tremendous benefits but could also lead to negative outcomes without appropriate care. For example, AI technology can boost human productivity in a wide range of activities (e.g., improve health diagnostics and research into diseases, analyze energy usage, and more). However, without sufficient precautions, AI could also be used to support harmful or malicious activities and respond in biased or offensive ways.

By providing standard measures of safety across categories such as harmful use, out-of-scope responses, AI-control risks, etc., standard AI safety benchmarks could help society reap the benefits of AI while ensuring that sufficient precautions are being taken to mitigate these risks. Initially, nascent safety benchmarks could help drive AI safety research and inform responsible AI development. With time and maturity, they could help inform users and purchasers of AI systems. Eventually, they could be a valuable tool for policy makers.

In computer hardware, benchmarks (e.g., SPEC, TPC) have shown an amazing ability to align research, engineering, and even marketing across an entire industry in pursuit of progress, and we believe standard AI safety benchmarks could help do the same in this vital area.


What are standard AI safety benchmarks?

Academic and corporate research efforts have experimented with a range of AI safety tests (e.g., RealToxicityPrompts, Stanford HELM fairness, bias, toxicity measurements, and Google’s guardrails for generative AI). However, most of these tests focus on providing a prompt to an AI system and algorithmically scoring the output, which is a useful start but limited to the scope of the test prompts. Further, they usually use open datasets for the prompts and responses, which may already have been (often inadvertently) incorporated into training data.

MLCommons proposes a multi-stakeholder process for selecting tests and grouping them into subsets to measure safety for particular AI use-cases, and translating the highly technical results of those tests into scores that everyone can understand. MLCommons is proposing to create a platform that brings these existing tests together in one place and encourages the creation of more rigorous tests that move the state of the art forward. Users will be able to access these tests both through online testing where they can generate and review scores and offline testing with an engine for private testing.


AI safety benchmarks should be a collective effort

Responsible AI developers use a diverse range of safety measures, including automatic testing, manual testing, red teaming (in which human testers attempt to produce adversarial outcomes), software-imposed restrictions, data and model best-practices, and auditing. However, determining that sufficient precautions have been taken can be challenging, especially as the community of companies providing AI systems grows and diversifies. Standard AI benchmarks could provide a powerful tool for helping the community grow responsibly, both by helping vendors and users measure AI safety and by encouraging an ecosystem of resources and specialist providers focused on improving AI safety.

At the same time, development of mature AI safety benchmarks that are both effective and trusted is not possible without the involvement of the community. This effort will need researchers and engineers to come together and provide innovative yet practical improvements to safety testing technology that make testing both more rigorous and more efficient. Similarly, companies will need to come together and provide test data, engineering support, and financial support. Some aspects of AI safety can be subjective, and building trusted benchmarks supported by a broad consensus will require incorporating multiple perspectives, including those of public advocates, policy makers, academics, engineers, data workers, business leaders, and entrepreneurs.


Google’s support for MLCommons

Grounded in our AI Principles that were announced in 2018, Google is committed to specific practices for the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI (see our 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 updates). We’ve also made significant progress on key commitments, which will help ensure AI is developed boldly and responsibly, for the benefit of everyone.

Google is supporting the MLCommons Association's efforts to develop AI safety benchmarks in a number of ways.

  1. Testing platform: We are joining with other companies in providing funding to support the development of a testing platform.
  2. Technical expertise and resources: We are providing technical expertise and resources, such as the Monk Skin Tone Examples Dataset, to help ensure that the benchmarks are well-designed and effective.
  3. Datasets: We are contributing an internal dataset for multilingual representational bias, as well as already externalized tests for stereotyping harms, such as SeeGULL and SPICE. Moreover, we are sharing our datasets that focus on collecting human annotations responsibly and inclusively, like DICES and SRP.

Future direction

We believe that these benchmarks will be very useful for advancing research in AI safety and ensuring that AI systems are developed and deployed in a responsible manner. AI safety is a collective-action problem. Groups like the Frontier Model Forum and Partnership on AI are also leading important standardization initiatives. We’re pleased to have been part of these groups and MLCommons since their beginning. We look forward to additional collective efforts to promote the responsible development of new generative AI tools.


Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the Google team that contributed to this work: Peter Mattson, Lora Aroyo, Chris Welty, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Parker Barnes, Tulsee Doshi, Manvinder Singh, Brian Goldman, Nitesh Goyal, Alice Friend, Nicole Delange, Kerry Barker, Madeleine Elish, Shruti Sheth, Dawn Bloxwich, William Isaac, Christina Butterfield.

Source: Google AI Blog


Responsible AI at Google Research: Perception Fairness

Posted by Susanna Ricco and Utsav Prabhu, co-leads, Perception Fairness Team, Google Research

Google’s Responsible AI research is built on a foundation of collaboration — between teams with diverse backgrounds and expertise, between researchers and product developers, and ultimately with the community at large. The Perception Fairness team drives progress by combining deep subject-matter expertise in both computer vision and machine learning (ML) fairness with direct connections to the researchers building the perception systems that power products across Google and beyond. Together, we are working to intentionally design our systems to be inclusive from the ground up, guided by Google’s AI Principles.

Perception Fairness research spans the design, development, and deployment of advanced multimodal models including the latest foundation and generative models powering Google's products.

Our team's mission is to advance the frontiers of fairness and inclusion in multimodal ML systems, especially related to foundation models and generative AI. This encompasses core technology components including classification, localization, captioning, retrieval, visual question answering, text-to-image or text-to-video generation, and generative image and video editing. We believe that fairness and inclusion can and should be top-line performance goals for these applications. Our research is focused on unlocking novel analyses and mitigations that enable us to proactively design for these objectives throughout the development cycle. We answer core questions, such as: How can we use ML to responsibly and faithfully model human perception of demographic, cultural, and social identities in order to promote fairness and inclusion? What kinds of system biases (e.g., underperforming on images of people with certain skin tones) can we measure and how can we use these metrics to design better algorithms? How can we build more inclusive algorithms and systems and react quickly when failures occur?


Measuring representation of people in media

ML systems that can edit, curate or create images or videos can affect anyone exposed to their outputs, shaping or reinforcing the beliefs of viewers around the world. Research to reduce representational harms, such as reinforcing stereotypes or denigrating or erasing groups of people, requires a deep understanding of both the content and the societal context. It hinges on how different observers perceive themselves, their communities, or how others are represented. There's considerable debate in the field regarding which social categories should be studied with computational tools and how to do so responsibly. Our research focuses on working toward scalable solutions that are informed by sociology and social psychology, are aligned with human perception, embrace the subjective nature of the problem, and enable nuanced measurement and mitigation. One example is our research on differences in human perception and annotation of skin tone in images using the Monk Skin Tone scale.

Our tools are also used to study representation in large-scale content collections. Through our Media Understanding for Social Exploration (MUSE) project, we've partnered with academic researchers, nonprofit organizations, and major consumer brands to understand patterns in mainstream media and advertising content. We first published this work in 2017, with a co-authored study analyzing gender equity in Hollywood movies. Since then, we've increased the scale and depth of our analyses. In 2019, we released findings based on over 2.7 million YouTube advertisements. In the latest study, we examine representation across intersections of perceived gender presentation, perceived age, and skin tone in over twelve years of popular U.S. television shows. These studies provide insights for content creators and advertisers and further inform our own research.

An illustration (not actual data) of computational signals that can be analyzed at scale to reveal representational patterns in media collections. [Video Collection / Getty Images]

Moving forward, we're expanding the ML fairness concepts on which we focus and the domains in which they are responsibly applied. Looking beyond photorealistic images of people, we are working to develop tools that model the representation of communities and cultures in illustrations, abstract depictions of humanoid characters, and even images with no people in them at all. Finally, we need to reason about not just who is depicted, but how they are portrayed — what narrative is communicated through the surrounding image content, the accompanying text, and the broader cultural context.


Analyzing bias properties of perceptual systems

Building advanced ML systems is complex, with multiple stakeholders informing various criteria that decide product behavior. Overall quality has historically been defined and measured using summary statistics (like overall accuracy) over a test dataset as a proxy for user experience. But not all users experience products in the same way.

Perception Fairness enables practical measurement of nuanced system behavior beyond summary statistics, and makes these metrics core to the system quality that directly informs product behaviors and launch decisions. This is often much harder than it seems. Distilling complex bias issues (e.g., disparities in performance across intersectional subgroups or instances of stereotype reinforcement) to a small number of metrics without losing important nuance is extremely challenging. Another challenge is balancing the interplay between fairness metrics and other product metrics (e.g., user satisfaction, accuracy, latency), which are often phrased as conflicting despite being compatible. It is common for researchers to describe their work as optimizing an "accuracy-fairness" tradeoff when in reality widespread user satisfaction is aligned with meeting fairness and inclusion objectives.

We built and released the MIAP dataset as part of Open Images, leveraging our research on perception of socially relevant concepts and detection of biased behavior in complex systems to create a resource that furthers ML fairness research in computer vision. Original photo credits — left: Boston Public Library; middle: jen robinson; right: Garin Fons; all used with permission under the CC- BY 2.0 license.

To these ends, our team focuses on two broad research directions. First, democratizing access to well-understood and widely-applicable fairness analysis tooling, engaging partner organizations in adopting them into product workflows, and informing leadership across the company in interpreting results. This work includes developing broad benchmarks, curating widely-useful high-quality test datasets and tooling centered around techniques such as sliced analysis and counterfactual testing — often building on the core representation signals work described earlier. Second, advancing novel approaches towards fairness analytics — including partnering with product efforts that may result in breakthrough findings or inform launch strategy.


Advancing AI responsibly

Our work does not stop with analyzing model behavior. Rather, we use this as a jumping-off point for identifying algorithmic improvements in collaboration with other researchers and engineers on product teams. Over the past year we've launched upgraded components that power Search and Memories features in Google Photos, leading to more consistent performance and drastically improving robustness through added layers that keep mistakes from cascading through the system. We are working on improving ranking algorithms in Google Images to diversify representation. We updated algorithms that may reinforce historical stereotypes, using additional signals responsibly, such that it’s more likely for everyone to see themselves reflected in Search results and find what they're looking for.

This work naturally carries over to the world of generative AI, where models can create collections of images or videos seeded from image and text prompts and can answer questions about images and videos. We're excited about the potential of these technologies to deliver new experiences to users and as tools to further our own research. To enable this, we're collaborating across the research and responsible AI communities to develop guardrails that mitigate failure modes. We’re leveraging our tools for understanding representation to power scalable benchmarks that can be combined with human feedback, and investing in research from pre-training through deployment to steer the models to generate higher quality, more inclusive, and more controllable output. We want these models to inspire people, producing diverse outputs, translating concepts without relying on tropes or stereotypes, and providing consistent behaviors and responses across counterfactual variations of prompts.


Opportunities and ongoing work

Despite over a decade of focused work, the field of perception fairness technologies still seems like a nascent and fast-growing space, rife with opportunities for breakthrough techniques. We continue to see opportunities to contribute technical advances backed by interdisciplinary scholarship. The gap between what we can measure in images versus the underlying aspects of human identity and expression is large — closing this gap will require increasingly complex media analytics solutions. Data metrics that indicate true representation, situated in the appropriate context and heeding a diversity of viewpoints, remains an open challenge for us. Can we reach a point where we can reliably identify depictions of nuanced stereotypes, continually update them to reflect an ever-changing society, and discern situations in which they could be offensive? Algorithmic advances driven by human feedback point a promising path forward.

Recent focus on AI safety and ethics in the context of modern large model development has spurred new ways of thinking about measuring systemic biases. We are exploring multiple avenues to use these models — along with recent developments in concept-based explainability methods, causal inference methods, and cutting-edge UX research — to quantify and minimize undesired biased behaviors. We look forward to tackling the challenges ahead and developing technology that is built for everybody.


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank every member of the Perception Fairness team, and all of our collaborators.

Source: Google AI Blog


Using societal context knowledge to foster the responsible application of AI

Posted by Donald Martin, Jr., Technical Program Manager, Head of Societal Context Understanding Tools and Solutions (SCOUTS), Google Research

AI-related products and technologies are constructed and deployed in a societal context: that is, a dynamic and complex collection of social, cultural, historical, political and economic circumstances. Because societal contexts by nature are dynamic, complex, non-linear, contested, subjective, and highly qualitative, they are challenging to translate into the quantitative representations, methods, and practices that dominate standard machine learning (ML) approaches and responsible AI product development practices.

The first phase of AI product development is problem understanding, and this phase has tremendous influence over how problems (e.g., increasing cancer screening availability and accuracy) are formulated for ML systems to solve as well many other downstream decisions, such as dataset and ML architecture choice. When the societal context in which a product will operate is not articulated well enough to result in robust problem understanding, the resulting ML solutions can be fragile and even propagate unfair biases.

When AI product developers lack access to the knowledge and tools necessary to effectively understand and consider societal context during development, they tend to abstract it away. This abstraction leaves them with a shallow, quantitative understanding of the problems they seek to solve, while product users and society stakeholders — who are proximate to these problems and embedded in related societal contexts — tend to have a deep qualitative understanding of those same problems. This qualitative–quantitative divergence in ways of understanding complex problems that separates product users and society from developers is what we call the problem understanding chasm.

This chasm has repercussions in the real world: for example, it was the root cause of racial bias discovered by a widely used healthcare algorithm intended to solve the problem of choosing patients with the most complex healthcare needs for special programs. Incomplete understanding of the societal context in which the algorithm would operate led system designers to form incorrect and oversimplified causal theories about what the key problem factors were. Critical socio-structural factors, including lack of access to healthcare, lack of trust in the health care system, and underdiagnosis due to human bias, were left out while spending on healthcare was highlighted as a predictor of complex health need.

To bridge the problem understanding chasm responsibly, AI product developers need tools that put community-validated and structured knowledge of societal context about complex societal problems at their fingertips — starting with problem understanding, but also throughout the product development lifecycle. To that end, Societal Context Understanding Tools and Solutions (SCOUTS) — part of the Responsible AI and Human-Centered Technology (RAI-HCT) team within Google Research — is a dedicated research team focused on the mission to “empower people with the scalable, trustworthy societal context knowledge required to realize responsible, robust AI and solve the world's most complex societal problems.” SCOUTS is motivated by the significant challenge of articulating societal context, and it conducts innovative foundational and applied research to produce structured societal context knowledge and to integrate it into all phases of the AI-related product development lifecycle. Last year we announced that Jigsaw, Google’s incubator for building technology that explores solutions to threats to open societies, leveraged our structured societal context knowledge approach during the data preparation and evaluation phases of model development to scale bias mitigation for their widely used Perspective API toxicity classifier. Going forward SCOUTS’ research agenda focuses on the problem understanding phase of AI-related product development with the goal of bridging the problem understanding chasm.


Bridging the AI problem understanding chasm

Bridging the AI problem understanding chasm requires two key ingredients: 1) a reference frame for organizing structured societal context knowledge and 2) participatory, non-extractive methods to elicit community expertise about complex problems and represent it as structured knowledge. SCOUTS has published innovative research in both areas.




An illustration of the problem understanding chasm.

A societal context reference frame

An essential ingredient for producing structured knowledge is a taxonomy for creating the structure to organize it. SCOUTS collaborated with other RAI-HCT teams (TasC, Impact Lab), Google DeepMind, and external system dynamics experts to develop a taxonomic reference frame for societal context. To contend with the complex, dynamic, and adaptive nature of societal context, we leverage complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory to propose a high-level taxonomic model for organizing societal context knowledge. The model pinpoints three key elements of societal context and the dynamic feedback loops that bind them together: agents, precepts, and artifacts.

  • Agents: These can be individuals or institutions.
  • Precepts: The preconceptions — including beliefs, values, stereotypes and biases — that constrain and drive the behavior of agents. An example of a basic precept is that “all basketball players are over 6 feet tall.” That limiting assumption can lead to failures in identifying basketball players of smaller stature.
  • Artifacts: Agent behaviors produce many kinds of artifacts, including language, data, technologies, societal problems and products.

The relationships between these entities are dynamic and complex. Our work hypothesizes that precepts are the most critical element of societal context and we highlight the problems people perceive and the causal theories they hold about why those problems exist as particularly influential precepts that are core to understanding societal context. For example, in the case of racial bias in a medical algorithm described earlier, the causal theory precept held by designers was that complex health problems would cause healthcare expenditures to go up for all populations. That incorrect precept directly led to the choice of healthcare spending as the proxy variable for the model to predict complex healthcare need, which in turn led to the model being biased against Black patients who, due to societal factors such as lack of access to healthcare and underdiagnosis due to bias on average, do not always spend more on healthcare when they have complex healthcare needs. A key open question is how can we ethically and equitably elicit causal theories from the people and communities who are most proximate to problems of inequity and transform them into useful structured knowledge?

Illustrative version of societal context reference frame.
Taxonomic version of societal context reference frame.

Working with communities to foster the responsible application of AI to healthcare

Since its inception, SCOUTS has worked to build capacity in historically marginalized communities to articulate the broader societal context of the complex problems that matter to them using a practice called community based system dynamics (CBSD). System dynamics (SD) is a methodology for articulating causal theories about complex problems, both qualitatively as causal loop and stock and flow diagrams (CLDs and SFDs, respectively) and quantitatively as simulation models. The inherent support of visual qualitative tools, quantitative methods, and collaborative model building makes it an ideal ingredient for bridging the problem understanding chasm. CBSD is a community-based, participatory variant of SD specifically focused on building capacity within communities to collaboratively describe and model the problems they face as causal theories, directly without intermediaries. With CBSD we’ve witnessed community groups learn the basics and begin drawing CLDs within 2 hours.

Data 4 Black Lives community members learning system dynamics.

There is a huge potential for AI to improve medical diagnosis. But the safety, equity, and reliability of AI-related health diagnostic algorithms depends on diverse and balanced training datasets. An open challenge in the health diagnostic space is the dearth of training sample data from historically marginalized groups. SCOUTS collaborated with the Data 4 Black Lives community and CBSD experts to produce qualitative and quantitative causal theories for the data gap problem. The theories include critical factors that make up the broader societal context surrounding health diagnostics, including cultural memory of death and trust in medical care.

The figure below depicts the causal theory generated during the collaboration described above as a CLD. It hypothesizes that trust in medical care influences all parts of this complex system and is the key lever for increasing screening, which in turn generates data to overcome the data diversity gap.

Causal loop diagram of the health diagnostics data gap

These community-sourced causal theories are a first step to bridge the problem understanding chasm with trustworthy societal context knowledge.


Conclusion

As discussed in this blog, the problem understanding chasm is a critical open challenge in responsible AI. SCOUTS conducts exploratory and applied research in collaboration with other teams within Google Research, external community, and academic partners across multiple disciplines to make meaningful progress solving it. Going forward our work will focus on three key elements, guided by our AI Principles:

  1. Increase awareness and understanding of the problem understanding chasm and its implications through talks, publications, and training.
  2. Conduct foundational and applied research for representing and integrating societal context knowledge into AI product development tools and workflows, from conception to monitoring, evaluation and adaptation.
  3. Apply community-based causal modeling methods to the AI health equity domain to realize impact and build society’s and Google’s capability to produce and leverage global-scale societal context knowledge to realize responsible AI.
SCOUTS flywheel for bridging the problem understanding chasm.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to John Guilyard for graphics development, everyone in SCOUTS, and all of our collaborators and sponsors.

Source: Google AI Blog


Differentially private clustering for large-scale datasets

Posted by Vincent Cohen-Addad and Alessandro Epasto, Research Scientists, Google Research, Graph Mining team

Clustering is a central problem in unsupervised machine learning (ML) with many applications across domains in both industry and academic research more broadly. At its core, clustering consists of the following problem: given a set of data elements, the goal is to partition the data elements into groups such that similar objects are in the same group, while dissimilar objects are in different groups. This problem has been studied in math, computer science, operations research and statistics for more than 60 years in its myriad variants. Two common forms of clustering are metric clustering, in which the elements are points in a metric space, like in the k-means problem, and graph clustering, where the elements are nodes of a graph whose edges represent similarity among them.

In the k-means clustering problem, we are given a set of points in a metric space with the objective to identify k representative points, called centers (here depicted as triangles), so as to minimize the sum of the squared distances from each point to its closest center. Source, rights: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Despite the extensive literature on algorithm design for clustering, few practical works have focused on rigorously protecting the user's privacy during clustering. When clustering is applied to personal data (e.g., the queries a user has made), it is necessary to consider the privacy implications of using a clustering solution in a real system and how much information the output solution reveals about the input data.

To ensure privacy in a rigorous sense, one solution is to develop differentially private (DP) clustering algorithms. These algorithms ensure that the output of the clustering does not reveal private information about a specific data element (e.g., whether a user has made a given query) or sensitive data about the input graph (e.g., a relationship in a social network). Given the importance of privacy protections in unsupervised machine learning, in recent years Google has invested in research on theory and practice of differentially private metric or graph clustering, and differential privacy in a variety of contexts, e.g., heatmaps or tools to design DP algorithms.

Today we are excited to announce two important updates: 1) a new differentially-private algorithm for hierarchical graph clustering, which we’ll be presenting at ICML 2023, and 2) the open-source release of the code of a scalable differentially-private k-means algorithm. This code brings differentially private k-means clustering to large scale datasets using distributed computing. Here, we will also discuss our work on clustering technology for a recent launch in the health domain for informing public health authorities.


Differentially private hierarchical clustering

Hierarchical clustering is a popular clustering approach that consists of recursively partitioning a dataset into clusters at an increasingly finer granularity. A well known example of hierarchical clustering is the phylogenetic tree in biology in which all life on Earth is partitioned into finer and finer groups (e.g., kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc.). A hierarchical clustering algorithm receives as input a graph representing the similarity of entities and learns such recursive partitions in an unsupervised way. Yet at the time of our research no algorithm was known to compute hierarchical clustering of a graph with edge privacy, i.e., preserving the privacy of the vertex interactions.

In “Differentially-Private Hierarchical Clustering with Provable Approximation Guarantees”, we consider how well the problem can be approximated in a DP context and establish firm upper and lower bounds on the privacy guarantee. We design an approximation algorithm (the first of its kind) with a polynomial running time that achieves both an additive error that scales with the number of nodes n (of order n2.5) and a multiplicative approximation of O(log½ n), with the multiplicative error identical to the non-private setting. We further provide a new lower bound on the additive error (of order n2) for any private algorithm (irrespective of its running time) and provide an exponential-time algorithm that matches this lower bound. Moreover, our paper includes a beyond-worst-case analysis focusing on the hierarchical stochastic block model, a standard random graph model that exhibits a natural hierarchical clustering structure, and introduces a private algorithm that returns a solution with an additive cost over the optimum that is negligible for larger and larger graphs, again matching the non-private state-of-the-art approaches. We believe this work expands the understanding of privacy preserving algorithms on graph data and will enable new applications in such settings.


Large-scale differentially private clustering

We now switch gears and discuss our work for metric space clustering. Most prior work in DP metric clustering has focused on improving the approximation guarantees of the algorithms on the k-means objective, leaving scalability questions out of the picture. Indeed, it is not clear how efficient non-private algorithms such as k-means++ or k-means// can be made differentially private without sacrificing drastically either on the approximation guarantees or the scalability. On the other hand, both scalability and privacy are of primary importance at Google. For this reason, we recently published multiple papers that address the problem of designing efficient differentially private algorithms for clustering that can scale to massive datasets. Our goal is, moreover, to offer scalability to large scale input datasets, even when the target number of centers, k, is large.

We work in the massively parallel computation (MPC) model, which is a computation model representative of modern distributed computation architectures. The model consists of several machines, each holding only part of the input data, that work together with the goal of solving a global problem while minimizing the amount of communication between machines. We present a differentially private constant factor approximation algorithm for k-means that only requires a constant number of rounds of synchronization. Our algorithm builds upon our previous work on the problem (with code available here), which was the first differentially-private clustering algorithm with provable approximation guarantees that can work in the MPC model.

The DP constant factor approximation algorithm drastically improves on the previous work using a two phase approach. In an initial phase it computes a crude approximation to “seed” the second phase, which consists of a more sophisticated distributed algorithm. Equipped with the first-step approximation, the second phase relies on results from the Coreset literature to subsample a relevant set of input points and find a good differentially private clustering solution for the input points. We then prove that this solution generalizes with approximately the same guarantee to the entire input.


Vaccination search insights via DP clustering

We then apply these advances in differentially private clustering to real-world applications. One example is our application of our differentially-private clustering solution for publishing COVID vaccine-related queries, while providing strong privacy protections for the users.

The goal of Vaccination Search Insights (VSI) is to help public health decision makers (health authorities, government agencies and nonprofits) identify and respond to communities' information needs regarding COVID vaccines. In order to achieve this, the tool allows users to explore at different geolocation granularities (zip-code, county and state level in the U.S.) the top themes searched by users regarding COVID queries. In particular, the tool visualizes statistics on trending queries rising in interest in a given locale and time.

Screenshot of the output of the tool. Displayed on the left, the top searches related to Covid vaccines during the period Oct 10-16 2022. On the right, the queries that have had rising importance during the same period and compared to the previous week.

To better help identifying the themes of the trending searches, the tool clusters the search queries based on their semantic similarity. This is done by applying a custom-designed k-means–based algorithm run over search data that has been anonymized using the DP Gaussian mechanism to add noise and remove low-count queries (thus resulting in a differentially clustering). The method ensures strong differential privacy guarantees for the protection of the user data.

This tool provided fine-grained data on COVID vaccine perception in the population at unprecedented scales of granularity, something that is especially relevant to understand the needs of the marginalized communities disproportionately affected by COVID. This project highlights the impact of our investment in research in differential privacy, and unsupervised ML methods. We are looking to other important areas where we can apply these clustering techniques to help guide decision making around global health challenges, like search queries on climate change–related challenges such as air quality or extreme heat.


Acknowledgements

We thank our co-authors Silvio Lattanzi, Vahab Mirrokni, Andres Munoz Medina, Shyam Narayanan, David Saulpic, Chris Schwiegelshohn, Sergei Vassilvitskii, Peilin Zhong and our colleagues from the Health AI team that made the VSI launch possible Shailesh Bavadekar, Adam Boulanger, Tague Griffith, Mansi Kansal, Chaitanya Kamath, Akim Kumok, Yael Mayer, Tomer Shekel, Megan Shum, Charlotte Stanton, Mimi Sun, Swapnil Vispute, and Mark Young.

For more information on the Graph Mining team (part of Algorithm and Optimization) visit our pages.

Source: Google AI Blog


Responsible AI at Google Research: PAIR

Posted by Lucas Dixon and Michael Terry, co-leads, PAIR, Google Research

PAIR (People + AI Research) first launched in 2017 with the belief that “AI can go much further — and be more useful to all of us — if we build systems with people in mind at the start of the process.” We continue to focus on making AI more understandable, interpretable, fun, and usable by more people around the world. It’s a mission that is particularly timely given the emergence of generative AI and chatbots.

Today, PAIR is part of the Responsible AI and Human-Centered Technology team within Google Research, and our work spans this larger research space: We advance foundational research on human-AI interaction (HAI) and machine learning (ML); we publish educational materials, including the PAIR Guidebook and Explorables (such as the recent Explorable looking at how and why models sometimes make incorrect predictions confidently); and we develop software tools like the Learning Interpretability Tool to help people understand and debug ML behaviors. Our inspiration this year is "changing the way people think about what THEY can do with AI.” This vision is inspired by the rapid emergence of generative AI technologies, such as large language models (LLMs) that power chatbots like Bard, and new generative media models like Google's Imagen, Parti, and MusicLM. In this blog post, we review recent PAIR work that is changing the way we engage with AI.


Generative AI research

Generative AI is creating a lot of excitement, and PAIR is involved in a range of related research, from using language models to create generative agents to studying how artists adopted generative image models like Imagen and Parti. These latter "text-to-image" models let a person input a text-based description of an image for the model to generate (e.g., "a gingerbread house in a forest in a cartoony style"). In a forthcoming paper titled “The Prompt Artists” (to appear in Creativity and Cognition 2023), we found that users of generative image models strive not only to create beautiful images, but also to create unique, innovative styles. To help achieve these styles, some would even seek unique vocabulary to help develop their visual style. For example, they may visit architectural blogs to learn what domain-specific vocabulary they can adopt to help produce distinctive images of buildings.

We are also researching solutions to challenges faced by prompt creators who, with generative AI, are essentially programming without using a programming language. As an example, we developed new methods for extracting semantically meaningful structure from natural language prompts. We have applied these structures to prompt editors to provide features similar to those found in other programming environments, such as semantic highlighting, autosuggest, and structured data views.

The growth of generative LLMs has also opened up new techniques to solve important long-standing problems. Agile classifiers are one approach we’re taking to leverage the semantic and syntactic strengths of LLMs to solve classification problems related to safer online discourse, such as nimbly blocking newer types of toxic language as quickly as it may evolve online. The big advance here is the ability to develop high quality classifiers from very small datasets — as small as 80 examples. This suggests a positive future for online discourse and better moderation of it: instead of collecting millions of examples to attempt to create universal safety classifiers for all use cases over months or years, more agile classifiers might be created by individuals or small organizations and tailored for their specific use cases, and iterated on and adapted in the time-span of a day (e.g., to block a new kind of harassment being received or to correct unintended biases in models). As an example of their utility, these methods recently won a SemEval competition to identify and explain sexism.

We've also developed new state-of-the-art explainability methods to identify the role of training data on model behaviors and misbehaviours. By combining training data attribution methods with agile classifiers, we also found that we can identify mislabelled training examples. This makes it possible to reduce the noise in training data, leading to significant improvements on model accuracy.

Collectively, these methods are critical to help the scientific community improve generative models. They provide techniques for fast and effective content moderation and dialogue safety methods that help support creators whose content is the basis for generative models' amazing outcomes. In addition, they provide direct tools to help debug model misbehavior which leads to better generation.


Visualization and education

To lower barriers in understanding ML-related work, we regularly design and publish highly visual, interactive online essays, called AI Explorables, that provide accessible, hands-on ways to learn about key ideas in ML. For example, we recently published new AI Explorables on the topics of model confidence and unintended biases. In our latest Explorable, “From Confidently Incorrect Models to Humble Ensembles,” we discuss the problem with model confidence: models can sometimes be very confident in their predictions… and yet completely incorrect. Why does this happen and what can be done about it? Our Explorable walks through these issues with interactive examples and shows how we can build models that have more appropriate confidence in their predictions by using a technique called ensembling, which works by averaging the outputs of multiple models. Another Explorable, “Searching for Unintended Biases with Saliency”, shows how spurious correlations can lead to unintended biases — and how techniques such as saliency maps can detect some biases in datasets, with the caveat that it can be difficult to see bias when it’s more subtle and sporadic in a training set.

PAIR designs and publishes AI Explorables, interactive essays on timely topics and new methods in ML research, such as “From Confidently Incorrect Models to Humble Ensembles,” which looks at how and why models offer incorrect predictions with high confidence, and how “ensembling” the outputs of many models can help avoid this.

Transparency and the Data Cards Playbook

Continuing to advance our goal of helping people to understand ML, we promote transparent documentation. In the past, PAIR and Google Cloud developed model cards. Most recently, we presented our work on Data Cards at ACM FAccT’22 and open-sourced the Data Cards Playbook, a joint effort with the Technology, AI, Society, and Culture team (TASC). The Data Cards Playbook is a toolkit of participatory activities and frameworks to help teams and organizations overcome obstacles when setting up a transparency effort. It was created using an iterative, multidisciplinary approach rooted in the experiences of over 20 teams at Google, and comes with four modules: Ask, Inspect, Answer and Audit. These modules contain a variety of resources that can help you customize Data Cards to your organization’s needs:

  • 18 Foundations: Scalable frameworks that anyone can use on any dataset type
  • 19 Transparency Patterns: Evidence-based guidance to produce high-quality Data Cards at scale
  • 33 Participatory Activities: Cross-functional workshops to navigate transparency challenges for teams
  • Interactive Lab: Generate interactive Data Cards from markdown in the browser

The Data Cards Playbook is accessible as a learning pathway for startups, universities, and other research groups.


Software Tools

Our team thrives on creating tools, toolkits, libraries, and visualizations that expand access and improve understanding of ML models. One such resource is Know Your Data, which allows researchers to test a model’s performance for various scenarios through interactive qualitative exploration of datasets that they can use to find and fix unintended dataset biases.

Recently, PAIR released a new version of the Learning Interpretability Tool (LIT) for model debugging and understanding. LIT v0.5 provides support for image and tabular data, new interpreters for tabular feature attribution, a "Dive" visualization for faceted data exploration, and performance improvements that allow LIT to scale to 100k dataset entries. You can find the release notes and code on GitHub.

PAIR’s Learning Interpretability Tool (LIT), an open-source platform for visualization and understanding of ML models.

PAIR has also contributed to MakerSuite, a tool for rapid prototyping with LLMs using prompt programming. MakerSuite builds on our earlier research on PromptMaker, which won an honorable mention at CHI 2022. MakerSuite lowers the barrier to prototyping ML applications by broadening the types of people who can author these prototypes and by shortening the time spent prototyping models from months to minutes. 

A screenshot of MakerSuite, a tool for rapidly prototyping new ML models using prompt-based programming, which grew out of PAIR's prompt programming research.

Ongoing work

As the world of AI moves quickly ahead, PAIR is excited to continue to develop new tools, research, and educational materials to help change the way people think about what THEY can do with AI.

For example, we recently conducted an exploratory study with five designers (presented at CHI this year) that looks at how people with no ML programming experience or training can use prompt programming to quickly prototype functional user interface mock-ups. This prototyping speed can help inform designers on how to integrate ML models into products, and enables them to conduct user research sooner in the product design process.

Based on this study, PAIR’s researchers built PromptInfuser, a design tool plugin for authoring LLM-infused mock-ups. The plug-in introduces two novel LLM-interactions: input-output, which makes content interactive and dynamic, and frame-change, which directs users to different frames depending on their natural language input. The result is more tightly integrated UI and ML prototyping, all within a single interface.

Recent advances in AI represent a significant shift in how easy it is for researchers to customize and control models for their research objectives and goals.These capabilities are transforming the way we think about interacting with AI, and they create lots of new opportunities for the research community. PAIR is excited about how we can leverage these capabilities to make AI easier to use for more people.


Acknowledgements

Thanks to everyone in PAIR, to Reena Jana and to all of our collaborators.

Source: Google AI Blog