The Quantum Frontier

The success of the abstract model of computation, in terms of bits, logical operations, programming language constructs, and the like, makes it easy to forget that computation is a physical process. Our cherished notions of computation and information are grounded in classical mechanics, but the physics underlying our world is quantum. In the early 80s researchers began to ask how computation would change if we adopted a quantum mechanical, instead of a classical mechanical, view of computation. Slowly, a new picture of computation arose, one that gave rise to a variety of faster algorithms, novel cryptographic mechanisms, and alternative methods of communication. Small quantum information processing devices have been built, and efforts are underway to build larger ones. Even apart from the existence of these devices, the quantum view on information processing has provided significant insight into the nature of computation and information, and a deeper understanding of the physics of our universe and its connections with computation. We start by describing aspects of quantum mechanics that are at the heart of a quantum view of information processing. We give our own idiosyncratic view of a number of these topics in the hopes of correcting common misconceptions and highlighting aspects that are often overlooked. A number of the phenomena described were initially viewed as oddities of quantum mechanics. It was quantum information processing, first quantum cryptography and then, more dramatically, quantum computing, that turned the tables and showed that these oddities could be put to practical effect. It is these application we describe next. We conclude with a section describing some of the many questions left for future work, especially the mysteries surrounding where the power of quantum information ultimately comes from.Comment: Invited book chapter for Computation for Humanity - Information Technology to Advance Society to be published by CRC Press. Concepts clarified and style made more uniform in version 2. Many thanks to the referees for their suggestions for improvement

Rethinking AI Explainability and Plausibility

Setting proper evaluation objectives for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is vital for making XAI algorithms follow human communication norms, support human reasoning processes, and fulfill human needs for AI explanations. In this article, we examine explanation plausibility, which is the most pervasive human-grounded concept in XAI evaluation. Plausibility measures how reasonable the machine explanation is compared to the human explanation. Plausibility has been conventionally formulated as an important evaluation objective for AI explainability tasks. We argue against this idea, and show how optimizing and evaluating XAI for plausibility is sometimes harmful, and always ineffective to achieve model understandability, transparency, and trustworthiness. Specifically, evaluating XAI algorithms for plausibility regularizes the machine explanation to express exactly the same content as human explanation, which deviates from the fundamental motivation for humans to explain: expressing similar or alternative reasoning trajectories while conforming to understandable forms or language. Optimizing XAI for plausibility regardless of the model decision correctness also jeopardizes model trustworthiness, as doing so breaks an important assumption in human-human explanation namely that plausible explanations typically imply correct decisions, and violating this assumption eventually leads to either undertrust or overtrust of AI models. Instead of being the end goal in XAI evaluation, plausibility can serve as an intermediate computational proxy for the human process of interpreting explanations to optimize the utility of XAI. We further highlight the importance of explainability-specific evaluation objectives by differentiating the AI explanation task from the object localization task

Explainable and Advisable Learning for Self-driving Vehicles

Deep neural perception and control networks are likely to be a key component of self-driving vehicles. These models need to be explainable - they should provide easy-to-interpret rationales for their behavior - so that passengers, insurance companies, law enforcement, developers, etc., can understand what triggered a particular behavior. Explanations may be triggered by the neural controller, namely introspective explanations, or informed by the neural controller's output, namely rationalizations. Our work has focused on the challenge of generating introspective explanations of deep models for self-driving vehicles. In Chapter 3, we begin by exploring the use of visual explanations. These explanations take the form of real-time highlighted regions of an image that causally influence the network's output (steering control). In the first stage, we use a visual attention model to train a convolution network end-to-end from images to steering angle. The attention model highlights image regions that potentially influence the network's output. Some of these are true influences, but some are spurious. We then apply a causal filtering step to determine which input regions actually influence the output. This produces more succinct visual explanations and more accurately exposes the network's behavior. In Chapter 4, we add an attention-based video-to-text model to produce textual explanations of model actions, e.g. "the car slows down because the road is wet". The attention maps of controller and explanation model are aligned so that explanations are grounded in the parts of the scene that mattered to the controller. We explore two approaches to attention alignment, strong- and weak-alignment. These explainable systems represent an externalization of tacit knowledge. The network's opaque reasoning is simplified to a situation-specific dependence on a visible object in the image. This makes them brittle and potentially unsafe in situations that do not match training data. In Chapter 5, we propose to address this issue by augmenting training data with natural language advice from a human. Advice includes guidance about what to do and where to attend. We present the first step toward advice-giving, where we train an end-to-end vehicle controller that accepts advice. The controller adapts the way it attends to the scene (visual attention) and the control (steering and speed). Further, in Chapter 6, we propose a new approach that learns vehicle control with the help of long-term (global) human advice. Specifically, our system learns to summarize its visual observations in natural language, predict an appropriate action response (e.g. "I see a pedestrian crossing, so I stop"), and predict the controls, accordingly