The performance of deep neural networks is highly sensitive to the choice of the hyperparameters that define the structure of the network and the learning process. When facing a new application, tuning a deep neural network is a tedious and time consuming process that is often described as a "dark art". This explains the necessity of automating the calibration of these hyperparameters. Derivative-free optimization is a field that develops methods designed to optimize time consuming functions without relying on derivatives. This work introduces the HyperNOMAD package, an extension of the NOMAD software that applies the MADS algorithm [7] to simultaneously tune the hyperparameters responsible for both the architecture and the learning process of a deep neural network (DNN), and that allows for an important flexibility in the exploration of the search space by taking advantage of categorical variables. This new approach is tested on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 data sets and achieves results comparable to the current state of the art.

Rapid development of AI applications has stimulated demand for, and has given rise to, the rapidly growing number and diversity of AI MSc degrees. AI and Robotics research communities, industries and students are becoming increasingly aware of the problems caused by unsafe or insecure AI applications. Among them, perhaps the most famous example is vulnerability of deep neural networks to ``adversarial attacks''. Owing to wide-spread use of neural networks in all areas of AI, this problem is seen as particularly acute and pervasive. Despite of the growing number of research papers about safety and security vulnerabilities of AI applications, there is a noticeable shortage of accessible tools, methods and teaching materials for incorporating verification into AI programs. LAIV -- the Lab for AI and Verification -- is a newly opened research lab at Heriot-Watt university that engages AI and Robotics MSc students in verification projects, as part of their MSc dissertation work. In this paper, we will report on successes and unexpected difficulties LAIV faces, many of which arise from limitations of existing programming languages used for verification. We will discuss future directions for incorporating verification into AI degrees.

We discuss the objectives of any endeavor in creating artificial intelligence, AI, and provide a possible alternative. Intelligence might be an unintended consequence of curiosity left to roam free, best exemplified by a frolicking infant. This suggests that our attempts at AI could have been misguided; what we actually need to strive for can be termed artificial curiosity, AC, and intelligence happens as a consequence of those efforts. For this unintentional yet welcome aftereffect to set in a foundational list of guiding principles needs to be present. We discuss what these essential doctrines might be and why their establishment is required to form connections, possibly growing, between a knowledge store that has been built up and new pieces of information that curiosity will bring back. As more findings are acquired and more bonds are fermented, we need a way to, periodically, reduce the amount of data; in the sense, it is important to capture the critical characteristics of what has been accumulated or produce a summary of what has been gathered. We start with the intuition for this line of reasoning and formalize it with a series of models (and iterative improvements) that will be necessary to make the incubation of intelligence a reality. Our discussion provides conceptual modifications to the Turing Test and to Searle's Chinese room argument. We discuss the future implications for society as AI becomes an integral part of life.

Recently, machine learning has prevailed in many academia and industrial applications. At the same time, quantum computing, once seen as not realizable, has been brought to markets by several tech giants. However, these machines are not fault-tolerant and can not execute very deep circuits. Therefore, it is urgent to design suitable algorithms and applications implementable on these machines. In this work, we demonstrate a novel approach which applies variational quantum circuits to deep reinforcement learning. With the proposed method, we can implement famous deep reinforcement learning algorithms such as experience replay and target network with variational quantum circuits. In this framework, with appropriate information encoding scheme, the possible quantum advantage is the number of circuit parameters with $poly(\log{} N)$ compared to $poly(N)$ in conventional neural network where $N$ is the dimension of input vectors. Such an approach can be deployed on near-term noisy intermediate-scale quantum machines.

Next-generation wireless networks must support ultra-reliable, low-latency communication and intelligently manage a massive number of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in real-time, within a highly dynamic environment. This need for stringent communication quality-of-service (QoS) requirements as well as mobile edge and core intelligence can only be realized by integrating fundamental notions of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning across the wireless infrastructure and end-user devices. In this context, this paper provides a comprehensive tutorial that introduces the main concepts of machine learning, in general, and artificial neural networks (ANNs), in particular, and their potential applications in wireless communications. For this purpose, we present a comprehensive overview on a number of key types of neural networks that include feed-forward, recurrent, spiking, and deep neural networks. For each type of neural network, we present the basic architecture and training procedure, as well as the associated challenges and opportunities. Then, we provide an in-depth overview on the variety of wireless communication problems that can be addressed using ANNs, ranging from communication using unmanned aerial vehicles to virtual reality and edge caching.For each individual application, we present the main motivation for using ANNs along with the associated challenges while also providing a detailed example for a use case scenario and outlining future works that can be addressed using ANNs. In a nutshell, this article constitutes one of the first holistic tutorials on the development of machine learning techniques tailored to the needs of future wireless networks.

Hyperparameter tuning is an omnipresent problem in machine learning as it is an integral aspect of obtaining the state-of-the-art performance for any model. Most often, hyperparameters are optimized just by training a model on a grid of possible hyperparameter values and taking the one that performs best on a validation sample (grid search). More recently, methods have been introduced that build a so-called surrogate model that predicts the validation loss for a specific hyperparameter setting, model and dataset and then sequentially select the next hyperparameter to test, based on a heuristic function of the expected value and the uncertainty of the surrogate model called acquisition function (sequential model-based Bayesian optimization, SMBO). In this paper we model the hyperparameter optimization problem as a sequential decision problem, which hyperparameter to test next, and address it with reinforcement learning. This way our model does not have to rely on a heuristic acquisition function like SMBO, but can learn which hyperparameters to test next based on the subsequent reduction in validation loss they will eventually lead to, either because they yield good models themselves or because they allow the hyperparameter selection policy to build a better surrogate model that is able to choose better hyperparameters later on. Experiments on a large battery of 50 data sets demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches for hyperparameter learning.

Project Management Institute released its 2019 Pulse of the Profession In-Depth Report: AI Innovators: Cracking the Code on Project Performance. The report provides an in-depth look at how artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting organizations and the project management profession. Findings reveal that AI disruption is happening and at a large scale: 81 percent of respondents report their organization is being impacted by AI technologies; 37 percent say adopting AI technologies is a high priority for their organization; and project professionals say they expect the proportion of the projects they manage using AI will jump from 23 to 37 percent over the next three years. These insights from a survey of 551 project management practitioners globally show that the presence of AI technologies will continue to grow, requiring shifts in how projects are managed and how organizations implement strategy. The report identifies six AI technologies that are impacting organizations globally.

Machine and reinforcement learning (RL) are being applied to plan and control the behavior of autonomous systems interacting with the physical world -- examples include self-driving vehicles, distributed sensor networks, and agile robots. However, if machine learning is to be applied in these new settings, the resulting algorithms must come with the reliability, robustness, and safety guarantees that are hallmarks of the control theory literature, as failures could be catastrophic. Thus, as RL algorithms are increasingly and more aggressively deployed in safety critical settings, it is imperative that control theorists be part of the conversation. The goal of this tutorial paper is to provide a jumping off point for control theorists wishing to work on RL related problems by covering recent advances in bridging learning and control theory, and by placing these results within the appropriate historical context of the system identification and adaptive control literatures.

If our models are used in new or unexpected cases, do we know if they will make fair predictions? Previously, researchers developed ways to debias a model for a single problem domain. However, this is often not how models are trained and used in practice. For example, labels and demographics (sensitive attributes) are often hard to observe, resulting in auxiliary or synthetic data to be used for training, and proxies of the sensitive attribute to be used for evaluation of fairness. A model trained for one setting may be picked up and used in many others, particularly as is common with pre-training and cloud APIs. Despite the pervasiveness of these complexities, remarkably little work in the fairness literature has theoretically examined these issues. We frame all of these settings as domain adaptation problems: how can we use what we have learned in a source domain to debias in a new target domain, without directly debiasing on the target domain as if it is a completely new problem? We offer new theoretical guarantees of improving fairness across domains, and offer a modeling approach to transfer to data-sparse target domains. We give empirical results validating the theory and showing that these modeling approaches can improve fairness metrics with less data.

As the capabilities and pervasiveness of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly affect society, there is increasing concern about the safety of such systems, i.e. the potential of accidental harm from implementation errors and unintended consequences in ML algorithms. As a result, there has been increasing interest in the nascent field of AI safety [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], which seeks to understand and solve the technical challenges in developing and deploying AI that does what it is intended to do. The purpose of this chapter is to explore how the study of AI safety intersects with that of evolutionary computation (EC), to both highlight an exciting and important set of safety problems within EC, and to suggest that evolution and EC have important insights that could benefit the general study of AI safety. To frame the problem of AI safety, we adopt the framework of Amodei et al. [1], which defines AI safety as concerned with accidents in ML systems, and defines five problems within three broad categories of issues: (1) specifying the wrong objective function, (2) making safe and efficient use of a true but expensive objective (e.g.