The FastMap Algorithm for Shortest Path Computations

We present a new preprocessing algorithm for embedding the nodes of a given edge-weighted undirected graph into a Euclidean space. The Euclidean distance between any two nodes in this space approximates the length of the shortest path between them in the given graph. Later, at runtime, a shortest path between any two nodes can be computed with A* search using the Euclidean distances as heuristic. Our preprocessing algorithm, called FastMap, is inspired by the data mining algorithm of the same name and runs in near-linear time. Hence, FastMap is orders of magnitude faster than competing approaches that produce a Euclidean embedding using Semidefinite Programming. FastMap also produces admissible and consistent heuristics and therefore guarantees the generation of shortest paths. Moreover, FastMap applies to general undirected graphs for which many traditional heuristics, such as the Manhattan Distance heuristic, are not well defined. Empirically, we demonstrate that A* search using the FastMap heuristic is competitive with A* search using other state-of-the-art heuristics, such as the Differential heuristic

PHLPP1 counter-regulates STAT1-mediated inflammatory signaling.

Inflammation is an essential aspect of innate immunity but also contributes to diverse human diseases. Although much is known about the kinases that control inflammatory signaling, less is known about the opposing phosphatases. Here we report that deletion of the gene encoding PH domain Leucine-rich repeat Protein Phosphatase 1 (PHLPP1) protects mice from lethal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge and live Escherichia coli infection. Investigation of PHLPP1 function in macrophages reveals that it controls the magnitude and duration of inflammatory signaling by dephosphorylating the transcription factor STAT1 on Ser727 to inhibit its activity, reduce its promoter residency, and reduce the expression of target genes involved in innate immunity and cytokine signaling. This previously undescribed function of PHLPP1 depends on a bipartite nuclear localization signal in its unique N-terminal extension. Our data support a model in which nuclear PHLPP1 dephosphorylates STAT1 to control the magnitude and duration of inflammatory signaling in macrophages

Engineering AI Systems: A Research Agenda

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly broadly adopted in industry, However, based on well over a dozen case studies, we have learned that deploying industry-strength, production quality ML models in systems proves to be challenging. Companies experience challenges related to data quality, design methods and processes, performance of models as well as deployment and compliance. We learned that a new, structured engineering approach is required to construct and evolve systems that contain ML/DL components. In this paper, we provide a conceptualization of the typical evolution patterns that companies experience when employing ML as well as an overview of the key problems experienced by the companies that we have studied. The main contribution of the paper is a research agenda for AI engineering that provides an overview of the key engineering challenges surrounding ML solutions and an overview of open items that need to be addressed by the research community at large.Comment: 8 pages, 4 figure

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies?

Background Although many aspects of systematic reviews use computational tools, systematic reviewers have been reluctant to adopt machine learning tools. Discussion We discuss that the potential reason for the slow adoption of machine learning tools into systematic reviews is multifactorial. We focus on the current absence of trust in automation and set-up challenges as major barriers to adoption. It is important that reviews produced using automation tools are considered non-inferior or superior to current practice. However, this standard will likely not be sufficient to lead to widespread adoption. As with many technologies, it is important that reviewers see “others” in the review community using automation tools. Adoption will also be slow if the automation tools are not compatible with workflows and tasks currently used to produce reviews. Many automation tools being developed for systematic reviews mimic classification problems. Therefore, the evidence that these automation tools are non-inferior or superior can be presented using methods similar to diagnostic test evaluations, i.e., precision and recall compared to a human reviewer. However, the assessment of automation tools does present unique challenges for investigators and systematic reviewers, including the need to clarify which metrics are of interest to the systematic review community and the unique documentation challenges for reproducible software experiments. Conclusion We discuss adoption barriers with the goal of providing tool developers with guidance as to how to design and report such evaluations and for end users to assess their validity. Further, we discuss approaches to formatting and announcing publicly available datasets suitable for assessment of automation technologies and tools. Making these resources available will increase trust that tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice. Finally, we identify that, even with evidence that automation tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice, substantial set-up challenges remain for main stream integration of automation into the systematic review process