Search

Substance use is a global issue that negatively impacts millions of persons who use drugs (PWUDs). In practice, identifying vulnerable PWUDs for efficient allocation of appropriate resources is challenging due to their complex use patterns (e.g., their tendency to change usage within months) and the high acquisition costs for collecting PWUD-focused substance use data. Thus, there has been a paucity of machine learning models for accurately predicting short-term substance use behaviors of PWUDs. In this paper, using longitudinal survey data of 258 PWUDs in the U.S. Great Plains collected by our team, we design a novel GAN that deals with high-dimensional low-sample-size tabular data and survey skip logic to augment existing data to improve classification models' prediction on (A) whether the PWUDs would increase usage and (B) at which ordinal frequency they would use a particular drug within the next 12 months. Our evaluation results show that, when trained on augmented data from our proposed GAN, the classification models improve their predictive performance (AUROC) by up to 13.4% in Problem (A) and 15.8% in Problem (B) for usage of marijuana, meth, amphetamines, and cocaine, which outperform state-of-the-art generative models., Comment: Accepted in IJCAI 2024

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass., Comment: 102 pages, 8 figures, 41 tables

Ethics in AI becomes a global topic of interest for both policymakers and academic researchers. In the last few years, various research organizations, lawyers, think tankers and regulatory bodies get involved in developing AI ethics guidelines and principles. However, there is still debate about the implications of these principles. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) study to investigate the agreement on the significance of AI principles and identify the challenging factors that could negatively impact the adoption of AI ethics principles. The results reveal that the global convergence set consists of 22 ethical principles and 15 challenges. Transparency, privacy, accountability and fairness are identified as the most common AI ethics principles. Similarly, lack of ethical knowledge and vague principles are reported as the significant challenges for considering ethics in AI. The findings of this study are the preliminary inputs for proposing a maturity model that assess the ethical capabilities of AI systems and provide best practices for further improvements., Comment: 21 pages, 8 figures