5 Best Digital Billboard Advertising Companies

In the rapidly evolving landscape of outdoor advertising, Digital Billboard Advertising Companies are at the forefront of innovation, harnessing the power of Artificial Intelligence to revolutionize how advertisements are delivered and experienced. These companies are leveraging AI to dynamically optimize ad content, ensure ads are displayed…

MIT-derived algorithm helps forecast the frequency of extreme weather

To assess a community’s risk of extreme weather, policymakers rely first on global climate models that can be run decades, and even centuries, forward in time, but only at a coarse resolution. These models might be used to gauge, for instance, future climate conditions for the northeastern U.S., but not specifically for Boston.

To estimate Boston’s future risk of extreme weather such as flooding, policymakers can combine a coarse model’s large-scale predictions with a finer-resolution model, tuned to estimate how often Boston is likely to experience damaging floods as the climate warms. But this risk analysis is only as accurate as the predictions from that first, coarser climate model.

“If you get those wrong for large-scale environments, then you miss everything in terms of what extreme events will look like at smaller scales, such as over individual cities,” says Themistoklis Sapsis, the William I. Koch Professor and director of the Center for Ocean Engineering in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering.

Sapsis and his colleagues have now developed a method to “correct” the predictions from coarse climate models. By combining machine learning with dynamical systems theory, the team’s approach “nudges” a climate model’s simulations into more realistic patterns over large scales. When paired with smaller-scale models to predict specific weather events such as tropical cyclones or floods, the team’s approach produced more accurate predictions for how often specific locations will experience those events over the next few decades, compared to predictions made without the correction scheme.

MIT-derived algorithm helps forecast the frequency of extreme weather

Play video

This animation shows the evolution of storms around the northern hemisphere, as a result of a high-resolution storm model, combined with the MIT team’s corrected global climate model. The simulation improves the modeling of extreme values for wind, temperature, and humidity, which typically have significant errors in coarse scale models.

Credit: Courtesy of Ruby Leung and Shixuan Zhang, PNNL

Sapsis says the new correction scheme is general in form and can be applied to any global climate model. Once corrected, the models can help to determine where and how often extreme weather will strike as global temperatures rise over the coming years. 

“Climate change will have an effect on every aspect of human life, and every type of life on the planet, from biodiversity to food security to the economy,” Sapsis says. “If we have capabilities to know accurately how extreme weather will change, especially over specific locations, it can make a lot of difference in terms of preparation and doing the right engineering to come up with solutions. This is the method that can open the way to do that.”

The team’s results appear today in the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. The study’s MIT co-authors include postdoc Benedikt Barthel Sorensen and Alexis-Tzianni Charalampopoulos SM ’19, PhD ’23, with Shixuan Zhang, Bryce Harrop, and Ruby Leung of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington state.

Over the hood

Today’s large-scale climate models simulate weather features such as the average temperature, humidity, and precipitation around the world, on a grid-by-grid basis. Running simulations of these models takes enormous computing power, and in order to simulate how weather features will interact and evolve over periods of decades or longer, models average out features every 100 kilometers or so.

“It’s a very heavy computation requiring supercomputers,” Sapsis notes. “But these models still do not resolve very important processes like clouds or storms, which occur over smaller scales of a kilometer or less.”

To improve the resolution of these coarse climate models, scientists typically have gone under the hood to try and fix a model’s underlying dynamical equations, which describe how phenomena in the atmosphere and oceans should physically interact.

“People have tried to dissect into climate model codes that have been developed over the last 20 to 30 years, which is a nightmare, because you can lose a lot of stability in your simulation,” Sapsis explains. “What we’re doing is a completely different approach, in that we’re not trying to correct the equations but instead correct the model’s output.”

The team’s new approach takes a model’s output, or simulation, and overlays an algorithm that nudges the simulation toward something that more closely represents real-world conditions. The algorithm is based on a machine-learning scheme that takes in data, such as past information for temperature and humidity around the world, and learns associations within the data that represent fundamental dynamics among weather features. The algorithm then uses these learned associations to correct a model’s predictions.

“What we’re doing is trying to correct dynamics, as in how an extreme weather feature, such as the windspeeds during a Hurricane Sandy event, will look like in the coarse model, versus in reality,” Sapsis says. “The method learns dynamics, and dynamics are universal. Having the correct dynamics eventually leads to correct statistics, for example, frequency of rare extreme events.”

Climate correction

As a first test of their new approach, the team used the machine-learning scheme to correct simulations produced by the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), a climate model run by the U.S. Department of Energy, that simulates climate patterns around the world at a resolution of 110 kilometers. The researchers used eight years of past data for temperature, humidity, and wind speed to train their new algorithm, which learned dynamical associations between the measured weather features and the E3SM model. They then ran the climate model forward in time for about 36 years and applied the trained algorithm to the model’s simulations. They found that the corrected version produced climate patterns that more closely matched real-world observations from the last 36 years, not used for training.

“We’re not talking about huge differences in absolute terms,” Sapsis says. “An extreme event in the uncorrected simulation might be 105 degrees Fahrenheit, versus 115 degrees with our corrections. But for humans experiencing this, that is a big difference.”

When the team then paired the corrected coarse model with a specific, finer-resolution model of tropical cyclones, they found the approach accurately reproduced the frequency of extreme storms in specific locations around the world.

“We now have a coarse model that can get you the right frequency of events, for the present climate. It’s much more improved,” Sapsis says. “Once we correct the dynamics, this is a relevant correction, even when you have a different average global temperature, and it can be used for understanding how forest fires, flooding events, and heat waves will look in a future climate. Our ongoing work is focusing on analyzing future climate scenarios.”

“The results are particularly impressive as the method shows promising results on E3SM, a state-of-the-art climate model,” says Pedram Hassanzadeh, an associate professor who leads the Climate Extremes Theory and Data group at the University of Chicago and was not involved with the study. “It would be interesting to see what climate change projections this framework yields once future greenhouse-gas emission scenarios are incorporated.”

This work was supported, in part, by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

AI in HR: Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges

It’s no secret that LLMs are transforming virtually every industry—and HR is no exception. But, the journey into AI integration is fraught with extremes. On one end lies a cautious approach, rooted in a philosophy of “safety-ism,” which advocates for a slow embrace of AI due…

DynamiCrafter: Animating Open-domain Images with Video Diffusion Priors

Computer vision is one of the most exciting and well-researched fields within the AI community today, and despite the rapid enhancement of the computer vision models, a longstanding challenge that still troubles developers is image animation. Even today, image animation frameworks struggle to convert still images…

A Full Guide to Fine-Tuning Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4, LaMDA, PaLM, and others have taken the world by storm with their remarkable ability to understand and generate human-like text on a vast range of topics. These models are pre-trained on massive datasets comprising billions of words from the internet,…

Large language models use a surprisingly simple mechanism to retrieve some stored knowledge

Large language models use a surprisingly simple mechanism to retrieve some stored knowledge

Large language models, such as those that power popular artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT, are incredibly complex. Even though these models are being used as tools in many areas, such as customer support, code generation, and language translation, scientists still don’t fully grasp how they work.

In an effort to better understand what is going on under the hood, researchers at MIT and elsewhere studied the mechanisms at work when these enormous machine-learning models retrieve stored knowledge.

They found a surprising result: Large language models (LLMs) often use a very simple linear function to recover and decode stored facts. Moreover, the model uses the same decoding function for similar types of facts. Linear functions, equations with only two variables and no exponents, capture the straightforward, straight-line relationship between two variables.

The researchers showed that, by identifying linear functions for different facts, they can probe the model to see what it knows about new subjects, and where within the model that knowledge is stored.

Using a technique they developed to estimate these simple functions, the researchers found that even when a model answers a prompt incorrectly, it has often stored the correct information. In the future, scientists could use such an approach to find and correct falsehoods inside the model, which could reduce a model’s tendency to sometimes give incorrect or nonsensical answers.

“Even though these models are really complicated, nonlinear functions that are trained on lots of data and are very hard to understand, there are sometimes really simple mechanisms working inside them. This is one instance of that,” says Evan Hernandez, an electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) graduate student and co-lead author of a paper detailing these findings.

Hernandez wrote the paper with co-lead author Arnab Sharma, a computer science graduate student at Northeastern University; his advisor, Jacob Andreas, an associate professor in EECS and a member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); senior author David Bau, an assistant professor of computer science at Northeastern; and others at MIT, Harvard University, and the Israeli Institute of Technology. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

Finding facts

Most large language models, also called transformer models, are neural networks. Loosely based on the human brain, neural networks contain billions of interconnected nodes, or neurons, that are grouped into many layers, and which encode and process data.

Much of the knowledge stored in a transformer can be represented as relations that connect subjects and objects. For instance, “Miles Davis plays the trumpet” is a relation that connects the subject, Miles Davis, to the object, trumpet.

As a transformer gains more knowledge, it stores additional facts about a certain subject across multiple layers. If a user asks about that subject, the model must decode the most relevant fact to respond to the query.

If someone prompts a transformer by saying “Miles Davis plays the. . .” the model should respond with “trumpet” and not “Illinois” (the state where Miles Davis was born).

“Somewhere in the network’s computation, there has to be a mechanism that goes and looks for the fact that Miles Davis plays the trumpet, and then pulls that information out and helps generate the next word. We wanted to understand what that mechanism was,” Hernandez says.

The researchers set up a series of experiments to probe LLMs, and found that, even though they are extremely complex, the models decode relational information using a simple linear function. Each function is specific to the type of fact being retrieved.

For example, the transformer would use one decoding function any time it wants to output the instrument a person plays and a different function each time it wants to output the state where a person was born.

The researchers developed a method to estimate these simple functions, and then computed functions for 47 different relations, such as “capital city of a country” and “lead singer of a band.”

While there could be an infinite number of possible relations, the researchers chose to study this specific subset because they are representative of the kinds of facts that can be written in this way.

They tested each function by changing the subject to see if it could recover the correct object information. For instance, the function for “capital city of a country” should retrieve Oslo if the subject is Norway and London if the subject is England.

Functions retrieved the correct information more than 60 percent of the time, showing that some information in a transformer is encoded and retrieved in this way.

“But not everything is linearly encoded. For some facts, even though the model knows them and will predict text that is consistent with these facts, we can’t find linear functions for them. This suggests that the model is doing something more intricate to store that information,” he says.

Visualizing a model’s knowledge

They also used the functions to determine what a model believes is true about different subjects.

In one experiment, they started with the prompt “Bill Bradley was a” and used the decoding functions for “plays sports” and “attended university” to see if the model knows that Sen. Bradley was a basketball player who attended Princeton.

“We can show that, even though the model may choose to focus on different information when it produces text, it does encode all that information,” Hernandez says.

They used this probing technique to produce what they call an “attribute lens,” a grid that visualizes where specific information about a particular relation is stored within the transformer’s many layers.

Attribute lenses can be generated automatically, providing a streamlined method to help researchers understand more about a model. This visualization tool could enable scientists and engineers to correct stored knowledge and help prevent an AI chatbot from giving false information.

In the future, Hernandez and his collaborators want to better understand what happens in cases where facts are not stored linearly. They would also like to run experiments with larger models, as well as study the precision of linear decoding functions.

“This is an exciting work that reveals a missing piece in our understanding of how large language models recall factual knowledge during inference. Previous work showed that LLMs build information-rich representations of given subjects, from which specific attributes are being extracted during inference. This work shows that the complex nonlinear computation of LLMs for attribute extraction can be well-approximated with a simple linear function,” says Mor Geva Pipek, an assistant professor in the School of Computer Science at Tel Aviv University, who was not involved with this work.

This research was supported, in part, by Open Philanthropy, the Israeli Science Foundation, and an Azrieli Foundation Early Career Faculty Fellowship.

Engineering household robots to have a little common sense

From wiping up spills to serving up food, robots are being taught to carry out increasingly complicated household tasks. Many such home-bot trainees are learning through imitation; they are programmed to copy the motions that a human physically guides them through.

It turns out that robots are excellent mimics. But unless engineers also program them to adjust to every possible bump and nudge, robots don’t necessarily know how to handle these situations, short of starting their task from the top.

Now MIT engineers are aiming to give robots a bit of common sense when faced with situations that push them off their trained path. They’ve developed a method that connects robot motion data with the “common sense knowledge” of large language models, or LLMs.

Their approach enables a robot to logically parse many given household task into subtasks, and to physically adjust to disruptions within a subtask so that the robot can move on without having to go back and start a task from scratch — and without engineers having to explicitly program fixes for every possible failure along the way.   

Engineering household robots to have a little common sense
Image courtesy of the researchers.

“Imitation learning is a mainstream approach enabling household robots. But if a robot is blindly mimicking a human’s motion trajectories, tiny errors can accumulate and eventually derail the rest of the execution,” says Yanwei Wang, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). “With our method, a robot can self-correct execution errors and improve overall task success.”

Wang and his colleagues detail their new approach in a study they will present at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) in May. The study’s co-authors include EECS graduate students Tsun-Hsuan Wang and Jiayuan Mao, Michael Hagenow, a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro), and Julie Shah, the H.N. Slater Professor in Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT.

Language task

The researchers illustrate their new approach with a simple chore: scooping marbles from one bowl and pouring them into another. To accomplish this task, engineers would typically move a robot through the motions of scooping and pouring — all in one fluid trajectory. They might do this multiple times, to give the robot a number of human demonstrations to mimic.

“But the human demonstration is one long, continuous trajectory,” Wang says.

The team realized that, while a human might demonstrate a single task in one go, that task depends on a sequence of subtasks, or trajectories. For instance, the robot has to first reach into a bowl before it can scoop, and it must scoop up marbles before moving to the empty bowl, and so forth. If a robot is pushed or nudged to make a mistake during any of these subtasks, its only recourse is to stop and start from the beginning, unless engineers were to explicitly label each subtask and program or collect new demonstrations for the robot to recover from the said failure, to enable a robot to self-correct in the moment.

“That level of planning is very tedious,” Wang says.

Instead, he and his colleagues found some of this work could be done automatically by LLMs. These deep learning models process immense libraries of text, which they use to establish connections between words, sentences, and paragraphs. Through these connections, an LLM can then generate new sentences based on what it has learned about the kind of word that is likely to follow the last.

For their part, the researchers found that in addition to sentences and paragraphs, an LLM can be prompted to produce a logical list of subtasks that would be involved in a given task. For instance, if queried to list the actions involved in scooping marbles from one bowl into another, an LLM might produce a sequence of verbs such as “reach,” “scoop,” “transport,” and “pour.”

“LLMs have a way to tell you how to do each step of a task, in natural language. A human’s continuous demonstration is the embodiment of those steps, in physical space,” Wang says. “And we wanted to connect the two, so that a robot would automatically know what stage it is in a task, and be able to replan and recover on its own.”

Mapping marbles

For their new approach, the team developed an algorithm to automatically connect an LLM’s natural language label for a particular subtask with a robot’s position in physical space or an image that encodes the robot state. Mapping a robot’s physical coordinates, or an image of the robot state, to a natural language label is known as “grounding.” The team’s new algorithm is designed to learn a grounding “classifier,” meaning that it learns to automatically identify what semantic subtask a robot is in — for example, “reach” versus “scoop” — given its physical coordinates or an image view.

“The grounding classifier facilitates this dialogue between what the robot is doing in the physical space and what the LLM knows about the subtasks, and the constraints you have to pay attention to within each subtask,” Wang explains.

The team demonstrated the approach in experiments with a robotic arm that they trained on a marble-scooping task. Experimenters trained the robot by physically guiding it through the task of first reaching into a bowl, scooping up marbles, transporting them over an empty bowl, and pouring them in. After a few demonstrations, the team then used a pretrained LLM and asked the model to list the steps involved in scooping marbles from one bowl to another. The researchers then used their new algorithm to connect the LLM’s defined subtasks with the robot’s motion trajectory data. The algorithm automatically learned to map the robot’s physical coordinates in the trajectories and the corresponding image view to a given subtask.

The team then let the robot carry out the scooping task on its own, using the newly learned grounding classifiers. As the robot moved through the steps of the task, the experimenters pushed and nudged the bot off its path, and knocked marbles off its spoon at various points. Rather than stop and start from the beginning again, or continue blindly with no marbles on its spoon, the bot was able to self-correct, and completed each subtask before moving on to the next. (For instance, it would make sure that it successfully scooped marbles before transporting them to the empty bowl.)

“With our method, when the robot is making mistakes, we don’t need to ask humans to program or give extra demonstrations of how to recover from failures,” Wang says. “That’s super exciting because there’s a huge effort now toward training household robots with data collected on teleoperation systems. Our algorithm can now convert that training data into robust robot behavior that can do complex tasks, despite external perturbations.”