9 research outputs found

    Survey of Trustworthy AI: A Meta Decision of AI

    Get PDF
    When making strategic decisions, we are often confronted with overwhelming information to process. The situation can be further complicated when some pieces of evidence are contradicted each other or paradoxical. The challenge then becomes how to determine which information is useful and which ones should be eliminated. This process is known as meta-decision. Likewise, when it comes to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for strategic decision-making, placing trust in the AI itself becomes a meta-decision, given that many AI systems are viewed as opaque "black boxes" that process large amounts of data. Trusting an opaque system involves deciding on the level of Trustworthy AI (TAI). We propose a new approach to address this issue by introducing a novel taxonomy or framework of TAI, which encompasses three crucial domains: articulate, authentic, and basic for different levels of trust. To underpin these domains, we create ten dimensions to measure trust: explainability/transparency, fairness/diversity, generalizability, privacy, data governance, safety/robustness, accountability, reproducibility, reliability, and sustainability. We aim to use this taxonomy to conduct a comprehensive survey and explore different TAI approaches from a strategic decision-making perspective.Cloud-based Computational Decision, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning9. Industry, innovation and infrastructur

    Strategic Predictions and Explanations By Machine Learning

    No full text
    Many machine learning (ML) models can make predictions regarding credit default swaps (CDS) for the telecommunication (telco) service sector. However, some algorithms can only offer a black-box model. It is crucial to explain the prediction result for strategic decisions. We study the current state-of-the-art by comparing various ML models, including deep learning (transformers), gradient boost machine (GBM), and extreme GBM (XGBM), plus various explanations tools, namely Variable Importance (VI) Partial Dependent Plots (PDP), Local Individual Conditional Expectation (LIME), Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (ICE), and Shapley values (SHAP) for the prediction model. To search for an optimal solution, we implement a hyperparameter search by leveraging High-Performance Computing (HPC). We aim to draw an optimal model for strategic CDS investment decisions. Our experiment results show that the XGBM provides the best solution with fewer constraints9. Industry, innovation and infrastructur

    Reason: The Demarcation of Explainable and Interpretable Artificial Intelligence

    No full text
    We often use "explainable" artificial intelligence (XAI)" and "interpretable AI (IAI)" interchangeably. It seems reasonable as we rely on "explainable" to imply "interpretable" or vice versa. XAI or IAI mainly aims for transparency or Trustworthy AI (TAI). Nonetheless, exploring XAI and TAI can be intricate, given that TAI extends beyond technical aspects, such as ethics, morality, justice, belief, and fairness. Many of them are philosophical or psychological terms. At the core of this complexity is the duality of reason, in which we can reason either outwards or inwards. When directed outwards, we want our reason to make sense through the laws of nature. When turned inwards, we want our reason to be happy, guided by the laws of the heart, which eventually becomes the law of ethics. We argue that while both XAI and IAI share reason as a common notion for transparency, their distinctions lie in the purpose in which XAI usually emphasizes comprehension and IAI focuses on reflection. This assertion can be validated through various XAI experiments. We implement these experiments by harnessing the power of High-Performance Computing (HPC) or the cloud to fine-tune the model's hyperparameters for an optimal solution that renders XAI. We aim to differentiate XAI and IAI, driving progress in future research on XAI, IAI, and TAI.Cloud-Based Computational Decision By Leveraging Artificial Ultra Intelligence9. Industry, innovation and infrastructur

    Sex differences in oncogenic mutational processes

    Get PDF
    Sex differences have been observed in multiple facets of cancer epidemiology, treatment and biology, and in most cancers outside the sex organs. Efforts to link these clinical differences to specific molecular features have focused on somatic mutations within the coding regions of the genome. Here we report a pan-cancer analysis of sex differences in whole genomes of 1983 tumours of 28 subtypes as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium. We both confirm the results of exome studies, and also uncover previously undescribed sex differences. These include sex-biases in coding and non-coding cancer drivers, mutation prevalence and strikingly, in mutational signatures related to underlying mutational processes. These results underline the pervasiveness of molecular sex differences and strengthen the call for increased consideration of sex in molecular cancer research.Sex differences have been observed in multiple facets of cancer epidemiology, treatment and biology, and in most cancers outside the sex organs. Efforts to link these clinical differences to specific molecular features have focused on somatic mutations within the coding regions of the genome. Here we report a pan-cancer analysis of sex differences in whole genomes of 1983 tumours of 28 subtypes as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium. We both confirm the results of exome studies, and also uncover previously undescribed sex differences. These include sex-biases in coding and non-coding cancer drivers, mutation prevalence and strikingly, in mutational signatures related to underlying mutational processes. These results underline the pervasiveness of molecular sex differences and strengthen the call for increased consideration of sex in molecular cancer research.Peer reviewe

    Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

    Get PDF
    The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts.The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that -80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAFPeer reviewe

    Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes

    No full text
    corecore