Affiliate faculty of the UNC Charlotte School of Data Science * equal contributions to work † corresponding author: djacobs1@uncc.edu Abstract The effect of bias on hypothesis formation is characterized for an automated data-driven projection pursuit neural network to extract and select features for binary classification of data streams. This intelligent exploratory process partitions a complete vector state space into disjoint subspaces to create working hypotheses quantified by similarities and differences observed between two groups of labeled data streams. Data streams are typically time sequenced, and may exhibit complex spatio-temporal patterns. For example, given atomic trajectories from molecular dynamics simulation, the machine's task is to quantify dynamical mechanisms that promote function by comparing protein mutants, some known to function while others are nonfunctional. Utilizing synthetic two-dimensional molecules that mimic the dynamics of functional and nonfunctional proteins, biases are identified and controlled in both the machine learning model and selected training data under different contexts. The refinement of a working hypothesis converges to a statistically robust multivariate perception of the data based on a context-dependent perspective. Including diverse perspectives during data exploration enhances interpretability of the multivariate characterization of similarities and differences.

Machine learning models are known to be susceptible to adversarial attacks which can cause misclassification by introducing small but well designed perturbations. In this paper, we consider a classical hypothesis testing problem in order to develop fundamental insight into defending against such adversarial perturbations. We interpret an adversarial perturbation as a nuisance parameter, and propose a defense based on applying the generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) to the resulting composite hypothesis testing problem, jointly estimating the class of interest and the adversarial perturbation. While the GLRT approach is applicable to general multi-class hypothesis testing, we first evaluate it for binary hypothesis testing in white Gaussian noise under $\ell_{\infty}$ norm-bounded adversarial perturbations, for which a known minimax defense optimizing for the worst-case attack provides a benchmark. We derive the worst-case attack for the GLRT defense, and show that its asymptotic performance (as the dimension of the data increases) approaches that of the minimax defense. For non-asymptotic regimes, we show via simulations that the GLRT defense is competitive with the minimax approach under the worst-case attack, while yielding a better robustness-accuracy tradeoff under weaker attacks. We also illustrate the GLRT approach for a multi-class hypothesis testing problem, for which a minimax strategy is not known, evaluating its performance under both noise-agnostic and noise-aware adversarial settings, by providing a method to find optimal noise-aware attacks, and heuristics to find noise-agnostic attacks that are close to optimal in the high SNR regime.

The Observation--Hypothesis--Prediction--Experimentation loop paradigm for scientific research has been practiced by researchers for years towards scientific discoveries. However, with data explosion in both mega-scale and milli-scale scientific research, it has been sometimes very difficult to manually analyze the data and propose new hypothesis to drive the cycle for scientific discovery. In this paper, we discuss the role of Explainable AI in scientific discovery process by demonstrating an Explainable AI-based paradigm for science discovery. The key is to use Explainable AI to help derive data or model interpretations as well as scientific discoveries or insights. We show how computational and data-intensive methodology -- together with experimental and theoretical methodology -- can be seamlessly integrated for scientific research. To demonstrate the AI-based science discovery process, and to pay our respect to some of the greatest minds in human history, we show how Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the Newton's law of universal gravitation can be rediscovered by (Explainable) AI based on Tycho Brahe's astronomical observation data, whose works were leading the scientific revolution in the 16-17th century. This work also highlights the important role of Explainable AI (as compared to Blackbox AI) in science discovery to help humans prevent or better prepare for the possible technological singularity that may happen in the future.

We outline emerging opportunities and challenges to enhance the utility of AI for scientific discovery. The distinct goals of AI for industry versus the goals of AI for science create tension between identifying patterns in data versus discovering patterns in the world from data. If we address the fundamental challenges associated with "bridging the gap" between domain-driven scientific models and data-driven AI learning machines, then we expect that these AI models can transform hypothesis generation, scientific discovery, and the scientific process itself.

An iconoclastic philosopher and polymath, Charles Sanders Peirce (1837-1914) is among the greatest of American minds. In 1872, Peirce conducted a series of experiments to determine the distribution of response times to an auditory stimulus, which is widely regarded as one of the most significant statistical investigations in the history of nineteenth-century American mathematical research (Stigler, 1978). On the 150th anniversary of this historic experiment, we look back at Peirce's view on empirical modeling through a modern statistical lens.

Clicking on "Register", you agree to our Privacy Policy In this webinar, some statistical hypothesis testing will be introduced both in theory and in practice using Python programming language. This webinar will be given remotely and streaming using LiveWebinar platform, which works on every updated internet browser. No installation is then required. The duration is about 60 minutes. The speaker will show some slides for the theoretical part of the content and will write code during the event using Google Colaboratory for the practical part.

He discussed his personal AI journey--from games to scientific discovery, some of his breakthrough results in complex games of strategy, and some of the exciting ways that lessons from the world of games are helping to accelerate scientific discovery.

Hypothesis testing is a statistical approach that assists researchers in determining the validity of their theories. It is frequently used in statistics and data science to determine whether an event has occurred or will occur based on previous happenings. Let's understand Hypothesis Testing with an example. There is one Pharma Company which produces Vaccine A and you need to take 2 doses of that vaccine to get fully immune to the virus. Millions of people have already taken 2 doses of Vaccine A. After a few days the same company comes up with a Vaccine B which gives faster results, they claim that only 1 dose of this vaccine is enough to get fully immune to the virus.

The Transform Technology Summits start October 13th with Low-Code/No Code: Enabling Enterprise Agility. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.