-
The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants
Authors:
Iason Gabriel,
Arianna Manzini,
Geoff Keeling,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Verena Rieser,
Hasan Iqbal,
Nenad TomaĊĦev,
Ira Ktena,
Zachary Kenton,
Mikel Rodriguez,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Canfer Akbulut,
Andrew Trask,
Edward Hughes,
A. Stevie Bergman,
Renee Shelby,
Nahema Marchal,
Conor Griffin,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Laura Weidinger,
Winnie Street,
Benjamin Lange,
Alex Ingerman,
Alison Lentz
, et al. (32 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, pro…
▽ More
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.
△ Less
Submitted 28 April, 2024; v1 submitted 24 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities
Authors:
Mary Phuong,
Matthew Aitchison,
Elliot Catt,
Sarah Cogan,
Alexandre Kaskasoli,
Victoria Krakovna,
David Lindner,
Matthew Rahtz,
Yannis Assael,
Sarah Hodkinson,
Heidi Howard,
Tom Lieberum,
Ramana Kumar,
Maria Abi Raad,
Albert Webson,
Lewis Ho,
Sharon Lin,
Sebastian Farquhar,
Marcus Hutter,
Gregoire Deletang,
Anian Ruoss,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Anca Dragan,
Rohin Shah
, et al. (2 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new "dangerous capability" evaluations and pilot them on Gemini 1.0 models. Our evaluations cover four areas: (1) persuasion and deception; (2) cyber-security; (3) self-proliferation; and (4) self-reasoning. We do not find evidence of strong dangerous…
▽ More
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new "dangerous capability" evaluations and pilot them on Gemini 1.0 models. Our evaluations cover four areas: (1) persuasion and deception; (2) cyber-security; (3) self-proliferation; and (4) self-reasoning. We do not find evidence of strong dangerous capabilities in the models we evaluated, but we flag early warning signs. Our goal is to help advance a rigorous science of dangerous capability evaluation, in preparation for future models.
△ Less
Submitted 5 April, 2024; v1 submitted 20 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Limitations of Agents Simulated by Predictive Models
Authors:
Raymond Douglas,
Jacek Karwowski,
Chan Bae,
Andis Draguns,
Victoria Krakovna
Abstract:
There is increasing focus on adapting predictive models into agent-like systems, most notably AI assistants based on language models. We outline two structural reasons for why these models can fail when turned into agents. First, we discuss auto-suggestive delusions. Prior work has shown theoretically that models fail to imitate agents that generated the training data if the agents relied on hidde…
▽ More
There is increasing focus on adapting predictive models into agent-like systems, most notably AI assistants based on language models. We outline two structural reasons for why these models can fail when turned into agents. First, we discuss auto-suggestive delusions. Prior work has shown theoretically that models fail to imitate agents that generated the training data if the agents relied on hidden observations: the hidden observations act as confounding variables, and the models treat actions they generate as evidence for nonexistent observations. Second, we introduce and formally study a related, novel limitation: predictor-policy incoherence. When a model generates a sequence of actions, the model's implicit prediction of the policy that generated those actions can serve as a confounding variable. The result is that models choose actions as if they expect future actions to be suboptimal, causing them to be overly conservative. We show that both of those failures are fixed by including a feedback loop from the environment, that is, re-training the models on their own actions. We give simple demonstrations of both limitations using Decision Transformers and confirm that empirical results agree with our conceptual and formal analysis. Our treatment provides a unifying view of those failure modes, and informs the question of why fine-tuning offline learned policies with online learning makes them more effective.
△ Less
Submitted 8 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Quantifying stability of non-power-seeking in artificial agents
Authors:
Evan Ryan Gunter,
Yevgeny Liokumovich,
Victoria Krakovna
Abstract:
We investigate the question: if an AI agent is known to be safe in one setting, is it also safe in a new setting similar to the first? This is a core question of AI alignment--we train and test models in a certain environment, but deploy them in another, and we need to guarantee that models that seem safe in testing remain so in deployment. Our notion of safety is based on power-seeking--an agent…
▽ More
We investigate the question: if an AI agent is known to be safe in one setting, is it also safe in a new setting similar to the first? This is a core question of AI alignment--we train and test models in a certain environment, but deploy them in another, and we need to guarantee that models that seem safe in testing remain so in deployment. Our notion of safety is based on power-seeking--an agent which seeks power is not safe. In particular, we focus on a crucial type of power-seeking: resisting shutdown. We model agents as policies for Markov decision processes, and show (in two cases of interest) that not resisting shutdown is "stable": if an MDP has certain policies which don't avoid shutdown, the corresponding policies for a similar MDP also don't avoid shutdown. We also show that there are natural cases where safety is _not_ stable--arbitrarily small perturbations may result in policies which never shut down. In our first case of interest--near-optimal policies--we use a bisimulation metric on MDPs to prove that small perturbations won't make the agent take longer to shut down. Our second case of interest is policies for MDPs satisfying certain constraints which hold for various models (including language models). Here, we demonstrate a quantitative bound on how fast the probability of not shutting down can increase: by defining a metric on MDPs; proving that the probability of not shutting down, as a function on MDPs, is lower semicontinuous; and bounding how quickly this function decreases.
△ Less
Submitted 7 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models
Authors:
Gemini Team,
Rohan Anil,
Sebastian Borgeaud,
Jean-Baptiste Alayrac,
Jiahui Yu,
Radu Soricut,
Johan Schalkwyk,
Andrew M. Dai,
Anja Hauth,
Katie Millican,
David Silver,
Melvin Johnson,
Ioannis Antonoglou,
Julian Schrittwieser,
Amelia Glaese,
Jilin Chen,
Emily Pitler,
Timothy Lillicrap,
Angeliki Lazaridou,
Orhan Firat,
James Molloy,
Michael Isard,
Paul R. Barham,
Tom Hennigan,
Benjamin Lee
, et al. (1325 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultr…
▽ More
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultra model advances the state of the art in 30 of 32 of these benchmarks - notably being the first model to achieve human-expert performance on the well-studied exam benchmark MMLU, and improving the state of the art in every one of the 20 multimodal benchmarks we examined. We believe that the new capabilities of the Gemini family in cross-modal reasoning and language understanding will enable a wide variety of use cases. We discuss our approach toward post-training and deploying Gemini models responsibly to users through services including Gemini, Gemini Advanced, Google AI Studio, and Cloud Vertex AI.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024; v1 submitted 18 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Power-seeking can be probable and predictive for trained agents
Authors:
Victoria Krakovna,
Janos Kramar
Abstract:
Power-seeking behavior is a key source of risk from advanced AI, but our theoretical understanding of this phenomenon is relatively limited. Building on existing theoretical results demonstrating power-seeking incentives for most reward functions, we investigate how the training process affects power-seeking incentives and show that they are still likely to hold for trained agents under some simpl…
▽ More
Power-seeking behavior is a key source of risk from advanced AI, but our theoretical understanding of this phenomenon is relatively limited. Building on existing theoretical results demonstrating power-seeking incentives for most reward functions, we investigate how the training process affects power-seeking incentives and show that they are still likely to hold for trained agents under some simplifying assumptions. We formally define the training-compatible goal set (the set of goals consistent with the training rewards) and assume that the trained agent learns a goal from this set. In a setting where the trained agent faces a choice to shut down or avoid shutdown in a new situation, we prove that the agent is likely to avoid shutdown. Thus, we show that power-seeking incentives can be probable (likely to arise for trained agents) and predictive (allowing us to predict undesirable behavior in new situations).
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
Goal Misgeneralization: Why Correct Specifications Aren't Enough For Correct Goals
Authors:
Rohin Shah,
Vikrant Varma,
Ramana Kumar,
Mary Phuong,
Victoria Krakovna,
Jonathan Uesato,
Zac Kenton
Abstract:
The field of AI alignment is concerned with AI systems that pursue unintended goals. One commonly studied mechanism by which an unintended goal might arise is specification gaming, in which the designer-provided specification is flawed in a way that the designers did not foresee. However, an AI system may pursue an undesired goal even when the specification is correct, in the case of goal misgener…
▽ More
The field of AI alignment is concerned with AI systems that pursue unintended goals. One commonly studied mechanism by which an unintended goal might arise is specification gaming, in which the designer-provided specification is flawed in a way that the designers did not foresee. However, an AI system may pursue an undesired goal even when the specification is correct, in the case of goal misgeneralization. Goal misgeneralization is a specific form of robustness failure for learning algorithms in which the learned program competently pursues an undesired goal that leads to good performance in training situations but bad performance in novel test situations. We demonstrate that goal misgeneralization can occur in practical systems by providing several examples in deep learning systems across a variety of domains. Extrapolating forward to more capable systems, we provide hypotheticals that illustrate how goal misgeneralization could lead to catastrophic risk. We suggest several research directions that could reduce the risk of goal misgeneralization for future systems.
△ Less
Submitted 2 November, 2022; v1 submitted 4 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Avoiding Tampering Incentives in Deep RL via Decoupled Approval
Authors:
Jonathan Uesato,
Ramana Kumar,
Victoria Krakovna,
Tom Everitt,
Richard Ngo,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
How can we design agents that pursue a given objective when all feedback mechanisms are influenceable by the agent? Standard RL algorithms assume a secure reward function, and can thus perform poorly in settings where agents can tamper with the reward-generating mechanism. We present a principled solution to the problem of learning from influenceable feedback, which combines approval with a decoup…
▽ More
How can we design agents that pursue a given objective when all feedback mechanisms are influenceable by the agent? Standard RL algorithms assume a secure reward function, and can thus perform poorly in settings where agents can tamper with the reward-generating mechanism. We present a principled solution to the problem of learning from influenceable feedback, which combines approval with a decoupled feedback collection procedure. For a natural class of corruption functions, decoupled approval algorithms have aligned incentives both at convergence and for their local updates. Empirically, they also scale to complex 3D environments where tampering is possible.
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
REALab: An Embedded Perspective on Tampering
Authors:
Ramana Kumar,
Jonathan Uesato,
Richard Ngo,
Tom Everitt,
Victoria Krakovna,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
This paper describes REALab, a platform for embedded agency research in reinforcement learning (RL). REALab is designed to model the structure of tampering problems that may arise in real-world deployments of RL. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations of RL and simulated environments mirroring the MDP structure assume secure access to feedback (e.g., rewards). This may be unrealistic…
▽ More
This paper describes REALab, a platform for embedded agency research in reinforcement learning (RL). REALab is designed to model the structure of tampering problems that may arise in real-world deployments of RL. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations of RL and simulated environments mirroring the MDP structure assume secure access to feedback (e.g., rewards). This may be unrealistic in settings where agents are embedded and can corrupt the processes producing feedback (e.g., human supervisors, or an implemented reward function). We describe an alternative Corrupt Feedback MDP formulation and the REALab environment platform, which both avoid the secure feedback assumption. We hope the design of REALab provides a useful perspective on tampering problems, and that the platform may serve as a unit test for the presence of tampering incentives in RL agent designs.
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Avoiding Side Effects By Considering Future Tasks
Authors:
Victoria Krakovna,
Laurent Orseau,
Richard Ngo,
Miljan Martic,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
Designing reward functions is difficult: the designer has to specify what to do (what it means to complete the task) as well as what not to do (side effects that should be avoided while completing the task). To alleviate the burden on the reward designer, we propose an algorithm to automatically generate an auxiliary reward function that penalizes side effects. This auxiliary objective rewards the…
▽ More
Designing reward functions is difficult: the designer has to specify what to do (what it means to complete the task) as well as what not to do (side effects that should be avoided while completing the task). To alleviate the burden on the reward designer, we propose an algorithm to automatically generate an auxiliary reward function that penalizes side effects. This auxiliary objective rewards the ability to complete possible future tasks, which decreases if the agent causes side effects during the current task. The future task reward can also give the agent an incentive to interfere with events in the environment that make future tasks less achievable, such as irreversible actions by other agents. To avoid this interference incentive, we introduce a baseline policy that represents a default course of action (such as doing nothing), and use it to filter out future tasks that are not achievable by default. We formally define interference incentives and show that the future task approach with a baseline policy avoids these incentives in the deterministic case. Using gridworld environments that test for side effects and interference, we show that our method avoids interference and is more effective for avoiding side effects than the common approach of penalizing irreversible actions.
△ Less
Submitted 15 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
Reward Tampering Problems and Solutions in Reinforcement Learning: A Causal Influence Diagram Perspective
Authors:
Tom Everitt,
Marcus Hutter,
Ramana Kumar,
Victoria Krakovna
Abstract:
Can humans get arbitrarily capable reinforcement learning (RL) agents to do their bidding? Or will sufficiently capable RL agents always find ways to bypass their intended objectives by shortcutting their reward signal? This question impacts how far RL can be scaled, and whether alternative paradigms must be developed in order to build safe artificial general intelligence. In this paper, we study…
▽ More
Can humans get arbitrarily capable reinforcement learning (RL) agents to do their bidding? Or will sufficiently capable RL agents always find ways to bypass their intended objectives by shortcutting their reward signal? This question impacts how far RL can be scaled, and whether alternative paradigms must be developed in order to build safe artificial general intelligence. In this paper, we study when an RL agent has an instrumental goal to tamper with its reward process, and describe design principles that prevent instrumental goals for two different types of reward tampering (reward function tampering and RF-input tampering). Combined, the design principles can prevent both types of reward tampering from being instrumental goals. The analysis benefits from causal influence diagrams to provide intuitive yet precise formalizations.
△ Less
Submitted 26 March, 2021; v1 submitted 13 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
-
Modeling AGI Safety Frameworks with Causal Influence Diagrams
Authors:
Tom Everitt,
Ramana Kumar,
Victoria Krakovna,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
Proposals for safe AGI systems are typically made at the level of frameworks, specifying how the components of the proposed system should be trained and interact with each other. In this paper, we model and compare the most promising AGI safety frameworks using causal influence diagrams. The diagrams show the optimization objective and causal assumptions of the framework. The unified representatio…
▽ More
Proposals for safe AGI systems are typically made at the level of frameworks, specifying how the components of the proposed system should be trained and interact with each other. In this paper, we model and compare the most promising AGI safety frameworks using causal influence diagrams. The diagrams show the optimization objective and causal assumptions of the framework. The unified representation permits easy comparison of frameworks and their assumptions. We hope that the diagrams will serve as an accessible and visual introduction to the main AGI safety frameworks.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Penalizing side effects using stepwise relative reachability
Authors:
Victoria Krakovna,
Laurent Orseau,
Ramana Kumar,
Miljan Martic,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
How can we design safe reinforcement learning agents that avoid unnecessary disruptions to their environment? We show that current approaches to penalizing side effects can introduce bad incentives, e.g. to prevent any irreversible changes in the environment, including the actions of other agents. To isolate the source of such undesirable incentives, we break down side effects penalties into two c…
▽ More
How can we design safe reinforcement learning agents that avoid unnecessary disruptions to their environment? We show that current approaches to penalizing side effects can introduce bad incentives, e.g. to prevent any irreversible changes in the environment, including the actions of other agents. To isolate the source of such undesirable incentives, we break down side effects penalties into two components: a baseline state and a measure of deviation from this baseline state. We argue that some of these incentives arise from the choice of baseline, and others arise from the choice of deviation measure. We introduce a new variant of the stepwise inaction baseline and a new deviation measure based on relative reachability of states. The combination of these design choices avoids the given undesirable incentives, while simpler baselines and the unreachability measure fail. We demonstrate this empirically by comparing different combinations of baseline and deviation measure choices on a set of gridworld experiments designed to illustrate possible bad incentives.
△ Less
Submitted 8 March, 2019; v1 submitted 4 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
-
AI Safety Gridworlds
Authors:
Jan Leike,
Miljan Martic,
Victoria Krakovna,
Pedro A. Ortega,
Tom Everitt,
Andrew Lefrancq,
Laurent Orseau,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
We present a suite of reinforcement learning environments illustrating various safety properties of intelligent agents. These problems include safe interruptibility, avoiding side effects, absent supervisor, reward gaming, safe exploration, as well as robustness to self-modification, distributional shift, and adversaries. To measure compliance with the intended safe behavior, we equip each environ…
▽ More
We present a suite of reinforcement learning environments illustrating various safety properties of intelligent agents. These problems include safe interruptibility, avoiding side effects, absent supervisor, reward gaming, safe exploration, as well as robustness to self-modification, distributional shift, and adversaries. To measure compliance with the intended safe behavior, we equip each environment with a performance function that is hidden from the agent. This allows us to categorize AI safety problems into robustness and specification problems, depending on whether the performance function corresponds to the observed reward function. We evaluate A2C and Rainbow, two recent deep reinforcement learning agents, on our environments and show that they are not able to solve them satisfactorily.
△ Less
Submitted 28 November, 2017; v1 submitted 27 November, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
-
Reinforcement Learning with a Corrupted Reward Channel
Authors:
Tom Everitt,
Victoria Krakovna,
Laurent Orseau,
Marcus Hutter,
Shane Legg
Abstract:
No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward…
▽ More
No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward MDP. Traditional RL methods fare poorly in CRMDPs, even under strong simplifying assumptions and when trying to compensate for the possibly corrupt rewards. Two ways around the problem are investigated. First, by giving the agent richer data, such as in inverse reinforcement learning and semi-supervised reinforcement learning, reward corruption stemming from systematic sensory errors may sometimes be completely managed. Second, by using randomisation to blunt the agent's optimisation, reward corruption can be partially managed under some assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 19 August, 2017; v1 submitted 23 May, 2017;
originally announced May 2017.
-
Increasing the Interpretability of Recurrent Neural Networks Using Hidden Markov Models
Authors:
Viktoriya Krakovna,
Finale Doshi-Velez
Abstract:
As deep neural networks continue to revolutionize various application domains, there is increasing interest in making these powerful models more understandable and interpretable, and narrowing down the causes of good and bad predictions. We focus on recurrent neural networks, state of the art models in speech recognition and translation. Our approach to increasing interpretability is by combining…
▽ More
As deep neural networks continue to revolutionize various application domains, there is increasing interest in making these powerful models more understandable and interpretable, and narrowing down the causes of good and bad predictions. We focus on recurrent neural networks, state of the art models in speech recognition and translation. Our approach to increasing interpretability is by combining a long short-term memory (LSTM) model with a hidden Markov model (HMM), a simpler and more transparent model. We add the HMM state probabilities to the output layer of the LSTM, and then train the HMM and LSTM either sequentially or jointly. The LSTM can make use of the information from the HMM, and fill in the gaps when the HMM is not performing well. A small hybrid model usually performs better than a standalone LSTM of the same size, especially on smaller data sets. We test the algorithms on text data and medical time series data, and find that the LSTM and HMM learn complementary information about the features in the text.
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2016;
originally announced November 2016.
-
Increasing the Interpretability of Recurrent Neural Networks Using Hidden Markov Models
Authors:
Viktoriya Krakovna,
Finale Doshi-Velez
Abstract:
As deep neural networks continue to revolutionize various application domains, there is increasing interest in making these powerful models more understandable and interpretable, and narrowing down the causes of good and bad predictions. We focus on recurrent neural networks (RNNs), state of the art models in speech recognition and translation. Our approach to increasing interpretability is by com…
▽ More
As deep neural networks continue to revolutionize various application domains, there is increasing interest in making these powerful models more understandable and interpretable, and narrowing down the causes of good and bad predictions. We focus on recurrent neural networks (RNNs), state of the art models in speech recognition and translation. Our approach to increasing interpretability is by combining an RNN with a hidden Markov model (HMM), a simpler and more transparent model. We explore various combinations of RNNs and HMMs: an HMM trained on LSTM states; a hybrid model where an HMM is trained first, then a small LSTM is given HMM state distributions and trained to fill in gaps in the HMM's performance; and a jointly trained hybrid model. We find that the LSTM and HMM learn complementary information about the features in the text.
△ Less
Submitted 30 September, 2016; v1 submitted 16 June, 2016;
originally announced June 2016.
-
A Minimalistic Approach to Sum-Product Network Learning for Real Applications
Authors:
Viktoriya Krakovna,
Moshe Looks
Abstract:
Sum-Product Networks (SPNs) are a class of expressive yet tractable hierarchical graphical models. LearnSPN is a structure learning algorithm for SPNs that uses hierarchical co-clustering to simultaneously identifying similar entities and similar features. The original LearnSPN algorithm assumes that all the variables are discrete and there is no missing data. We introduce a practical, simplified…
▽ More
Sum-Product Networks (SPNs) are a class of expressive yet tractable hierarchical graphical models. LearnSPN is a structure learning algorithm for SPNs that uses hierarchical co-clustering to simultaneously identifying similar entities and similar features. The original LearnSPN algorithm assumes that all the variables are discrete and there is no missing data. We introduce a practical, simplified version of LearnSPN, MiniSPN, that runs faster and can handle missing data and heterogeneous features common in real applications. We demonstrate the performance of MiniSPN on standard benchmark datasets and on two datasets from Google's Knowledge Graph exhibiting high missingness rates and a mix of discrete and continuous features.
△ Less
Submitted 24 April, 2016; v1 submitted 12 February, 2016;
originally announced February 2016.