Kartik Chandra

Katherine M. Collins, Ilia Sucholutsky, Umang Bhatt et al. · mit

What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world.

Kartik Chandra, Tzu-Mao Li, Joshua Tenenbaum et al.

We design new visual illusions by finding "adversarial examples" for principled models of human perception -- specifically, for probabilistic models, which treat vision as Bayesian inference. To perform this search efficiently, we design a differentiable probabilistic programming language, whose API exposes MCMC inference as a first-class differentiable function. We demonstrate our method by automatically creating illusions for three features of human vision: color constancy, size constancy, and face perception.

Gaurav Arya, Ruben Seyer, Frank Schäfer et al.

We develop an algorithm for automatic differentiation of Metropolis-Hastings samplers, allowing us to differentiate through probabilistic inference, even if the model has discrete components within it. Our approach fuses recent advances in stochastic automatic differentiation with traditional Markov chain coupling schemes, providing an unbiased and low-variance gradient estimator. This allows us to apply gradient-based optimization to objectives expressed as expectations over intractable target densities. We demonstrate our approach by finding an ambiguous observation in a Gaussian mixture model and by maximizing the specific heat in an Ising model.

Kartik Chandra, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley et al.

"AI psychosis" or "delusional spiraling" is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots' well-documented bias towards validating users' claims, a property often called "sycophancy." In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation. We propose a simple Bayesian model of a user conversing with a chatbot, and formalize notions of sycophancy and delusional spiraling in that model. We then show that in this model, even an idealized Bayes-rational user is vulnerable to delusional spiraling, and that sycophancy plays a causal role. Furthermore, this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for model developers and policymakers concerned with mitigating the problem of delusional spiraling.

Matthew Caren, Kartik Chandra, Joshua B. Tenenbaum et al.

We present a method for automatically producing human-like vocal imitations of sounds: the equivalent of "sketching," but for auditory rather than visual representation. Starting with a simulated model of the human vocal tract, we first try generating vocal imitations by tuning the model's control parameters to make the synthesized vocalization match the target sound in terms of perceptually-salient auditory features. Then, to better match human intuitions, we apply a cognitive theory of communication to take into account how human speakers reason strategically about their listeners. Finally, we show through several experiments and user studies that when we add this type of communicative reasoning to our method, it aligns with human intuitions better than matching auditory features alone does. This observation has broad implications for the study of depiction in computer graphics.

Ana Dodik, Isabella Yu, Kartik Chandra et al.

Impossible objects, geometric constructions that humans can perceive but that cannot exist in real life, have been a topic of intrigue in visual arts, perception, and graphics, yet no satisfying computer representation of such objects exists. Previous work embeds impossible objects in 3D, cutting them or twisting/bending them in the depth axis. Cutting an impossible object changes its local geometry at the cut, which can hamper downstream graphics applications, such as smoothing, while bending makes it difficult to relight the object. Both of these can invalidate geometry operations, such as distance computation. As an alternative, we introduce Meschers, meshes capable of representing impossible constructions akin to those found in M.C. Escher's woodcuts. Our representation has a theoretical foundation in discrete exterior calculus and supports the use-cases above, as we demonstrate in a number of example applications. Moreover, because we can do discrete geometry processing on our representation, we can inverse-render impossible objects. We also compare our representation to cut and bend representations of impossible objects.

Kartik Chandra, Katherine M. Collins, Will Crichton et al.

Often, a good explanation for a program's unexpected behavior is a bug in the programmer's code. But sometimes, an even better explanation is a bug in the programmer's mental model of the language or API they are using. Instead of merely debugging our current code ("giving the programmer a fish"), what if our tools could directly debug our mental models ("teaching the programmer to fish")? In this paper, we apply recent ideas from computational cognitive science to offer a principled framework for doing exactly that. Given a "why?" question about a program, we automatically infer potential misconceptions about the language/API that might cause the user to be surprised by the program's behavior -- and then analyze those misconceptions to provide explanations of the program's behavior. Our key idea is to formally represent misconceptions as counterfactual (erroneous) semantics for the language/API, which can be inferred and debugged using program synthesis techniques. We demonstrate our framework, WatChat, by building systems for explanation in two domains: JavaScript type coercion, and the Git version control system. We evaluate WatChatJS and WatChatGit by comparing their outputs to experimentally-collected human-written explanations in these two domains: we show that WatChat's explanations exhibit key features of human-written explanation, unlike those of a state-of-the-art language model.

Utkarsh Singhal, Brian Cheung, Kartik Chandra et al.

How much can you say about the gradient of a neural network without computing a loss or knowing the label? This may sound like a strange question: surely the answer is "very little." However, in this paper, we show that gradients are more structured than previously thought. Gradients lie in a predictable low-dimensional subspace which depends on the network architecture and incoming features. Exploiting this structure can significantly improve gradient-free optimization schemes based on directional derivatives, which have struggled to scale beyond small networks trained on toy datasets. We study how to narrow the gap in optimization performance between methods that calculate exact gradients and those that use directional derivatives. Furthermore, we highlight new challenges in overcoming the large gap between optimizing with exact gradients and guessing the gradients.

Katherine M. Collins, Kartik Chandra, Adrian Weller et al.

Why do we give the explanations we do? Recent work has suggested that we should think of explanation as a kind of cooperative social interaction, between a why-question-asker and an explainer. Here, we apply this perspective to consider the role that emotion plays in this social interaction. We develop a computational framework for modeling explainers who consider the emotional impact an explanation might have on a listener. We test our framework by using it to model human intuitions about how a doctor might explain to a patient why they have a disease, taking into account the patient's propensity for regret. Our model predicts human intuitions well, better than emotion-agnostic ablations, suggesting that people do indeed reason about emotion when giving explanations.

Kartik Chandra, Tony Chen, Tzu-Mao Li et al.

A single panel of a comic book can say a lot: it can depict not only where the characters currently are, but also their motions, their motivations, their emotions, and what they might do next. More generally, humans routinely infer complex sequences of past and future events from a *static snapshot* of a *dynamic scene*, even in situations they have never seen before. In this paper, we model how humans make such rapid and flexible inferences. Building on a long line of work in cognitive science, we offer a Monte Carlo algorithm whose inferences correlate well with human intuitions in a wide variety of domains, while only using a small, cognitively-plausible number of samples. Our key technical insight is a surprising connection between our inference problem and Monte Carlo path tracing, which allows us to apply decades of ideas from the computer graphics community to this seemingly-unrelated theory of mind task.

Kartik Chandra, Tzu-Mao Li, Josh Tenenbaum et al.

Great storytellers know how to take us on a journey. They direct characters to act -- not necessarily in the most rational way -- but rather in a way that leads to interesting situations, and ultimately creates an impactful experience for audience members looking on. If audience experience is what matters most, then can we help artists and animators *directly* craft such experiences, independent of the concrete character actions needed to evoke those experiences? In this paper, we offer a novel computational framework for such tools. Our key idea is to optimize animations with respect to *simulated* audience members' experiences. To simulate the audience, we borrow an established principle from cognitive science: that human social intuition can be modeled as "inverse planning," the task of inferring an agent's (hidden) goals from its (observed) actions. Building on this model, we treat storytelling as "*inverse* inverse planning," the task of choosing actions to manipulate an inverse planner's inferences. Our framework is grounded in literary theory, naturally capturing many storytelling elements from first principles. We give a series of examples to demonstrate this, with supporting evidence from human subject studies.

Kartik Chandra, Audrey Xie, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley et al.

Working with any gradient-based machine learning algorithm involves the tedious task of tuning the optimizer's hyperparameters, such as its step size. Recent work has shown how the step size can itself be optimized alongside the model parameters by manually deriving expressions for "hypergradients" ahead of time. We show how to automatically compute hypergradients with a simple and elegant modification to backpropagation. This allows us to easily apply the method to other optimizers and hyperparameters (e.g. momentum coefficients). We can even recursively apply the method to its own hyper-hyperparameters, and so on ad infinitum. As these towers of optimizers grow taller, they become less sensitive to the initial choice of hyperparameters. We present experiments validating this for MLPs, CNNs, and RNNs. Finally, we provide a simple PyTorch implementation of this algorithm (see people.csail.mit.edu/kach/gradient-descent-the-ultimate-optimizer).

Sumith Kulal, Panupong Pasupat, Kartik Chandra et al.

We consider the task of mapping pseudocode to long programs that are functionally correct. Given test cases as a mechanism to validate programs, we search over the space of possible translations of the pseudocode to find a program that passes the validation. However, without proper credit assignment to localize the sources of program failures, it is difficult to guide search toward more promising programs. We propose to perform credit assignment based on signals from compilation errors, which constitute 88.7% of program failures. Concretely, we treat the translation of each pseudocode line as a discrete portion of the program, and whenever a synthesized program fails to compile, an error localization method tries to identify the portion of the program responsible for the failure. We then focus search over alternative translations of the pseudocode for those portions. For evaluation, we collected the SPoC dataset (Search-based Pseudocode to Code) containing 18,356 programs with human-authored pseudocode and test cases. Under a budget of 100 program compilations, performing search improves the synthesis success rate over using the top-one translation of the pseudocode from 25.6% to 44.7%.