Robots Can Now Learn Just By Observing, Without Being Told What To Look For

Machines are getting smarter every day—and that is both good and terrifying.

[Illustrations: v_alex/iStock]

Scientists at the University of Sheffield have come up with a way for machines to learn just by looking. They don't need to be told what to look for—they can just learn how a system works by observing it. The method is called Turing Learning and is inspired by Alan Turing's famous test.

For a computer to learn, usually it has to be told what to look for. For instance, if you wanted to teach a robot to paint like Picasso, you'd train software to mimic real Picasso paintings. "Someone would have to tell the algorithms what is considered similar to a Picasso to begin with," says Roderick Gross, in a news release.

Turing Learning would not require such prior knowledge, he says. It would use two computer systems, plus the original "system" you're investigating: a shoal of fish, a Picasso painting, anything. One of the computer systems tries to copy the real-world system as closely as possible. The other computer is an observer. Its task is to watch the goings-on and try to discern which of the systems is real, and which is the copy. If it guesses right, it gets a reward. At the same time, the counterfeit system is rewarded if it fools the observer.

Proceeding like this, the counterfeit models get better and better, and the observer works out how to distinguish real from fake to a more and more accurate degree. In the end, it can not only tell real from fake, but it has also—almost as a by-product of the process—created a precise model of how the genuine system works.

The experiment is named after Alan Turing's famous test for artificial intelligence, which says that if a computer program can fool a human observer into believing it is a real person, then it can be considered intelligent. In reality this never really works, as a) convincing a person that you're another person isn't a guarantee of intelligence, and b) many computer programs have simply been designed to game the human observers.

Turing Learning, though, is actually practical. It can be used to teach robots certain behaviors, but perhaps more useful is the categorization it performs. Set a Turing Learning machine loose on a swarm of insects, for instance, and it could tease out details in the behavior of a bee colony that remain invisible to humans.

The systems can also be used to recognize abnormal behavior, without first teaching the system what constitutes abnormal behavior. The possibilities here are huge, because noticing oddities in otherwise uniform behavior is something we humans can be terrible at. Look at airport security, for example and how often TSA agents miss guns, explosives, and other weapons.

The technique could also be used in video games to make the virtual players act more like real human players to monitor livestock for odd behaviors that might signal health problems, and for security purposes like lie detection.

In some ways, the technology is terrifying, as computers are able to get to the very basics of how things behave. On the other hand, they still need to be told what to do with that knowledge, so at least there's something for us puny humans to do in the world of the future.

ORIGINAL: FastCoExist

By CHARLIE SORREL 

09.07.16

Women Nobel Prize Winners: 16 Women Who Defied Odds To Win Science's Top Award (PHOTOS)

ORIGINAL: Huffington Post
By Adam Toobin

08/18/2013

Marie Sklodowska-Curie. Unknown photographer; Wikimedia Commons

Marie Curie, née Sklodowska — Physics 1903, Chemistry 1911

Marie Curie, née Sklodowska (1867-1934) became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize when she was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics along with her husband Pierre Curie and Antoine Henri Becquerel "for their discoveries concerning nuclear shell structure."

Curie became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the first woman to win an unshared Nobel Prize in the sciences and the first woman to win two Nobel Prizes — an achievement that no woman has yet to duplicate — when she was awarded the 1911 Nobel Prize for Chemistry "in recognition of her services to the advancement of chemistry by the discovery of the elements of radium and polonium, by the isolation of radium and the study of the nature and compounds of this remarkable element." 

Women make up a bit more than half of the world’s population, yet even in the most developed countries, men hold the lion's share of jobs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. What's more, men take home most of the prestigious scientific awards. That includes the Nobel Prizes, widely considered the ultimate mark of scientific achievement. 

Of the 357 people awarded a Nobel in the science categories — Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economic Sciences — only 16 have been women (see slideshow below).

What accounts for this discrepancy?

"This low representation is likely due to there unfortunately being very few women scientists in the first half of the 20th Century," Dr. Hannah Dougdale and Dr. Julia Schroeder, two researchers at the University of Sheffield who have studied barriers for women in the sciences, told The Huffington Post in an email.

Until the 1970s the number of women who received Nobel Prizes was roughly proportional to the number of women doing scientific research — a small group of women winning a small number of Nobels. But as the number of women in science has increased over the past 40 years, women Nobelists remain the exception, according to an article in Significance magazine by Stephanie Kovalchik, a statistician at the National Cancer Institute.

"The evidence suggests that, in the first half of the 20th Century, qualified women were struggling to enter the scientific profession but those who broke through were as valued as their male colleagues," Kovalchik wrote. Today, that may no longer be the case.

Mary Ann Liebert, the founder of the Rosalind Franklin Society, a group committed to securing Nobel nominations for women, told NPR that she thinks women who deserve prizes are often overlooked -- because nobody steps forward to nominate them.

"Men tend not to nominate them, and women don't nominate themselves," Liebert told NPR. "Women scientists have to be more assertive in seeking nominations. I think that's a major issue. And I think men have to put women's names into nomination, too."

Dugdale and Schroeder also found that women appear as invited speakers at conferences less often than men, leading them to conclude that "low visibility of high-quality female scientists potentially means that their work does not attract the attention that it deserves, and importantly it has the effect that scientists and students are exposed to fewer female role models."

Check out our list below of the 16 women who have won a Nobel Prize in science.

Women Nobel Prize Laureates in the Sciences

Iréne Joliot-Curie — Chemistry 1935. Iréne Joliot-Curie (1897-1956) was awarded the 1935 Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with her husband Frédéric Joliot, "in recognition of their synthesis of new radioactive elements." Joliot-Curie was the daughter of two-time Nobel Prize laureate Marie Curie née Sklodowska and Nobel Prize laureate Pierre Curie.

Gerty Cori, née Radnitz — Physiology or Medicine 1947. Gerty Cori, née Radnitz was awarded one half of the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with her husband Carl Ferdinand Cori "for their discovery of the course of the catalytic conversion of glycogen." The other half of the prize went to Bernando Alberto Houssay "for his discovery of the part played by the hormone of the anterior pituitary lobe in the metabolism of sugar."

Maria Goeppert Mayer - Physics 1963. Maria Goeppert Mayer (1906-1972) shared half of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physics with J. Hans D. Jensen, "for their discoveries concerning nuclear shell structure." Eugene Paul Wigner received the other half of the prize "for his contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the elementary particles, particularly through the discovery and application of fundamental symmetry principles."

Dorothy Hodgkin — Chemistry 1964. Dorothy Hodgkin (1910-1994) was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Chemistry " for her determinations by X-ray techniques of the structures of important biochemical substances."

Rosalyn Yalow — Physiology or Medicine 1977. Rosalyn Yalow (1921-2011) was awarded one half of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for the development of radioimmunoassays of peptide hormones." Andrew Schally and Roger Guillemin split the other half of the prize "for their discoveries concerning the peptide hormone production of the brain."

Barbara McClintock — Physiology or Medicine 1977. Barbara McClintock (b.1902) was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for her discovery of mobile genetic elements." McClintock is the only woman to win an unshared Nobel Prize in the field of Physiology or Medicine.

Rita Levi-Montalcini — Physiology or Medicine 1986. Rita Levi-Montalcini (1909-2012) was awarded the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Stanley Cohen "for their discoveries of growth factors."

Gertrude Elion — Physiology or Medicine 1988. Gertrude Elion (1918-1999) was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Sir James Black and George Hitchings "for their discoveries of important principles for drug treatment."

Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard — Physiology or Medicine 1995. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard (b.1942) was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Edward Lewis and Eric Wieschaus "for their discoveries concerning the genetic control of early embryonic development."

Linda Buck — Physiology or Medicine 2004. Linda Buck (b. 1947) was awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Richard Axel "for their discoveries of odorant receptors and the organization of the olfactory system."

Françoise Barre-Sinoussi — Physiology or Medicine 2008. Françoise Barre-Sinoussi was awarded half of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus." Harald zur Hausen won the other half of the prize "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer."

Elizabeth Blackburn — Physiology or Medicine 2009. Elizabeth Blackburn (b.1948) was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Carol Greider and Jack Szostak "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase." The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was the first Noble Prize in the sciences awarded to more than one woman. The year 2009 was also the first time more than one woman was awarded a Nobel Prize in the sciences -- Blackburn shared the Physiology or Medicine prize with Carol Greider, Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and Ada Yonath won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Carol Greider — Physiology or Medicine 2009. Carol Greider (b.1961) was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Jack Szostak "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase." The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was the first Noble Prize in the sciences awarded to more than one woman. The year 2009 was also the first time more than one woman was awarded a Nobel Prize in the sciences -- Greider shared the Physiology or Medicine prize with Elizabeth Blackburn, Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and Ada Yonath won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Elinor Ostrom — Economic Sciences 2009. Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012) was awarded one half of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons." Oliver Williamson won the other half of the prize "for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm." The year 2009 was also the first time more than one woman was awarded a Nobel Prize in the sciences. Other female prize winners that year were: Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider for Physiology or Medicine, and Ada Yonath for Chemistry.

Ada Yonath — Chemistry 2009. Ada Yonath (b. 1939) was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz "for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome." The year 2009 was also the first time more than one woman was awarded a Nobel Prize in the sciences. Other female prize winners that year were: Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider for Physiology or Medicine, and Elinor Ostrom for Economic Sciences.

First ever family tree for all living birds reveals evolution and diversification

ORIGINAL: Sheffield

30 October 2012

The world’s first family tree linking all living birds and revealing when and where they evolved and diversified since dinosaurs walked the earth has been created by scientists from the University of Sheffield.

Experts used the family tree to map out where the almost 10,000 species of birds live to show where the most diversification has taken place in the world.

Researchers, from the University of Sheffield, Yale University, University of Tasmania and Simon Fraser University, say the creation of new species has speeded-up over the last 50 million years. Surprisingly, species formation is not faster in the species rich tropics, but was found to be faster in the Western Hemisphere compared to the Eastern Hemisphere as well as on islands.

As well as being the first time scientists have created a family tree for birds, it is hoped the research could help prioritise conservation efforts in a bid to save the most diverse species from extinction.

Dr Gavin Thomas, of the University of Sheffield’s Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, said: "We have built the first ever family tree showing the evolutionary relationship among the species of birds. We used fossils and genetic data to estimate the ages of all the different branches of the bird tree so that we could assess how diversity has accumulated through time. Our work is indebted to researchers from museums and universities who have collected astounding amounts of genetic data from birds around the world."

Despite major steps forward in modern super computers it has still taken the researchers almost five years to analyse the millions of year’s worth of fossil data, DNA, maths and maps, to create this never-before-snapshot of how the thousands of birds alive made it to where they are today.

To even enable the scientists to calculate which species were more or less diverse they had to create a new 'species rate' measure.

Dr Thomas added: "Diversification is the net outcome of new species arising, called speciation, and existing species going extinct. We combined this data with existing data on the geographic ranges of all living bird species so that we could map diversification across the world.

"This 'phylogeny' is important because it is the first that includes all living birds. It means we can ask questions about biodiversity and evolution on a global scale and gain new insight into how diversity has changed over millions of years as well as understand those changes. More widely, one way in which the phylogeny can be used, and which may not be obvious, is in helping to prioritise conservation efforts.

"We can identify where species at greatest risk of extinction are on the tree and ask how much distinct evolutionary history they represent. Some species have many close relatives and represent a small amount of distinct evolutionary history whereas others have few close relatives and their loss would represent the disappearance of vast amounts of evolutionary history that could never be recovered. Environmental change has very likely affected diversification over time. Climate change could be a part of that through its effects on the extent of different types of habitat."

The paper - titled 'The global diversity of birds in space and time' - is published in the journal Nature.

Additional information

The University of Sheffield

With nearly 25,000 students from 125 countries, the University of Sheffield is one of the UK’s leading and largest universities. A member of the Russell Group, it has a reputation for world-class teaching and research excellence across a wide range of disciplines. The University of Sheffield has been named University of the Year in the Times Higher Education Awards for its exceptional performance in research, teaching, access and business performance. In addition, the University has won four Queen’s Anniversary Prizes (1998, 2000, 2002, and 2007).

These prestigious awards recognise outstanding contributions by universities and colleges to the United Kingdom’s intellectual, economic, cultural and social life. Sheffield also boasts five Nobel Prize winners among former staff and students and many of its alumni have gone on to hold positions of great responsibility and influence around the world. The University’s research partners and clients include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Unilever, Boots, AstraZeneca, GSK, ICI, Slazenger, and many more household names, as well as UK and overseas government agencies and charitable foundations.

The University has well-established partnerships with a number of universities and major corporations, both in the UK and abroad. Its partnership with Leeds and York Universities in the White Rose Consortium has a combined research power greater than that of either Oxford or Cambridge.

Project Sunshine

A major focus of Science research in Sheffield is on meeting the increasing food and energy needs of the world’s population in the context of an uncertain climate and global environment change. This challenge is being met through Project Sunshine, which unites scientists across the traditional boundaries in both the pure and applied sciences. 

Contact

For further information please contact:

Paul MannionMedia Relations Officer

The University of Sheffield

0114 222 9851

p.f.mannion@sheffield.ac.uk

Computational analysis of scattered images brings atomic resolution to electron microscopy

ORIGINAL: The Foresight Institute, Nature

The full field-of-view is shown in the inset image (scale bar, 15 nm); the main image is a blow up of the region indicated by the yellow box, showing 0.236 nm atomic plane fringes (scale bar, 5 nm). The modulus and phase of the reconstructions are combined in these images, with phase represented by colour and modulus by brightness, as indicated on the colour wheel scale. Nature

Courtesy of The University of Sheffield,
project leader Professor John Rodenburg,
of the University of Sheffield´s Department
of Electronic and Electrical Engineering

Although not visible at this magnification, the high resolution image in the open access research publication clearly shows the gold atoms, with a spacing of 0.236 nm between atomic planes.

In his famous visionary 1959 talk in which he described molecular machines building with atomic precision, Feynman suggested that if physicists wanted to help biologists, they should improve the electron microscope by a hundred times to see individual atoms. Many improvements have been made over the years, such as aberration-correcting electron lenses, but a recent contribution from the University of Sheffield has succeeded in showing for the first time that it is possible to recover the complex exit wave from a diffraction image at atomic resolution, over a wide field of view, and using low-energy electrons. A hat tip to ScienceDaily for reprinting this University of Sheffield news release “Scientists revolutionise electron microscope“:

For over 70 years, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which `looks through´ an object to see atomic features within it, has been constrained by the relatively poor lenses which are used to form the image.

The new method, called electron ptychography, dispenses with the lens and instead forms the image by reconstructing the scattered electron-waves after they have passed through the sample using computers.

Scientists involved in the scheme consider their findings to be a `first step´ in a `completely new epoch of electron imaging´. The process has no fundamental experimental boundaries and it is thought it will transform sub-atomic scale transmission imaging.

Experiments were carried out on an FEI Quanta 600 SEM fitted with a thermally assisted Schottky field emission gun and operating at 30 keV. The probe wavefront was formed using the microscope condenser and objective lenses and was scanned across the specimen using the microscope scanning coils. The specimen was mounted on a compact rig attached to the objective lens pole piece assembly. The door of the microscope was replaced in order to accommodate a flange for a Gatan Orius SC200 CDD camera that was cantilevered into a position below the specimen plane. Nature

Project leader Professor John Rodenburg, of the University of Sheffield´s Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, said: “To understand how material behaves, we need to know exactly where the atoms are. This approach will enable us to look at how atoms sit next to one another in a solid object as if we´re holding them in our hands.

“We´ve shown we can improve upon the resolution limit of an electron lens by a factor of five. An extension of the same method should reach the highest resolution transmission image ever obtained; about one tenth of an atomic diameter. No longer does TEM have to be bound by the paradigm of the lens, its Achilles´ heel since its invention in 1933.” …

Professor Rodenburg added: “We measure diffraction patterns rather than images. What we record is equivalent to the strength of the electron, X-ray or light waves which have been scattered by the object – this is called their intensity. However, to make an image, we need to know when the peaks and troughs of the waves arrive at the detector – this is called their phase.

“The key breakthrough has been to develop a way to calculate the phase of the waves from their intensity alone. Once we have this, we can work out backwards what the waves were scattered from: that is, we can form an aberration-free image of the object, which is much better than can be achieved with a normal lens.

“A typical electron or X-ray microscope image is about one hundred times more blurred than the theoretical limit defined by the wavelength. In this project, the eventual aim is to get the best-ever pictures of individual atoms in any structure seen within a three-dimensional object.” …

The research was published in Nature Communications as an open access article “Ptychographic electron microscopy using high-angle dark-field scattering for sub-nanometre resolution imaging“. Although the image in the press release (above) of the gold particles is too low a magnification to see the rows of atoms, the high resolution version of the image in the research paper clearly shows the gold atoms, with a spacing of 0.236 nm between atomic planes. Additional information is available on the authors’ project web site “Welcome to the ΠΦ project“.

—James Lewis