No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Building trustworthy and transparent image-based medical AI systems requires the ability to interrogate data and models at all stages of the development pipeline: from training models to post-deployment monitoring. Ideally, the data and associated AI systems could be described using terms already familiar to physicians, but this requires medical datasets densely annotated with semantically meaningful concepts. Here, we present a foundation model approach, named MONET (Medical cONcept rETriever), which learns how to connect medical images with text and generates dense concept annotations to enable tasks in AI transparency from model auditing to model interpretation. Dermatology provides a demanding use case for the versatility of MONET, due to the heterogeneity in diseases, skin tones, and imaging modalities. We trained MONET on the basis of 105,550 dermatological images paired with natural language descriptions from a large collection of medical literature. MONET can accurately annotate concepts across dermatology images as verified by board-certified dermatologists, outperforming supervised models built on previously concept-annotated dermatology datasets. We demonstrate how MONET enables AI transparency across the entire AI development pipeline from dataset auditing to model auditing to building inherently interpretable models.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is an area of machine learning concerned with enabling an agent to navigate an environment with uncertainty in order to maximize some notion of cumulative long-term reward. In this paper, we implement and analyze two different RL techniques, Sarsa and Deep Q-Learning, on OpenAI Gym's LunarLander-v2 environment. We then introduce additional uncertainty to the original problem to test the robustness of the mentioned techniques. With our best models, we are able to achieve average rewards of 170+ with the Sarsa agent and 200+ with the Deep Q-Learning agent on the original problem. We also show that these techniques are able to overcome the additional uncertainties and achieve positive average rewards of 100+ with both agents. We then perform a comparative analysis of the two techniques to conclude which agent performs better.