new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

Daily Papers

byAK and the research community

Sep 9

Channels of Stellar-mass Black Hole Formation

On the basis of a large collection of detailed 3D core-collapse supernova simulations carried to late times, we identify four channels of stellar mass black hole formation. Our examples for Channel 1 involve the formation of lower-gap and above black holes in energetic asymmetric supernova explosions. Our Channel 2 example involves a modest supernova explosion that may leave behind a lower-gap to sim10 M_{odot} black hole. The latter may not be easily distinguishable from ``standard" supernovae that birth neutron stars. Our Channel 3 example experiences an aborted core-collapse explosion, more often in the context of a low-metallicity progenitor, whose residue is a black hole with a mass perhaps up to sim40 M_{odot}. The latter may be accompanied by a pulsational-pair instability supernova (PPISN). Channel 4 is the only quiescent or ``silent" scenario for which perhaps sim5 to 15 M_{odot} black holes are left. Where appropriate, we estimate ^{56}Ni yields, explosion energies, approximate recoil speeds, and residual black hole masses. The progenitor mass density and binding energy profiles at collapse influence the outcome in a systematic way. The statistics and prevalence of these various channels depend not only on still evolving supernova theory, but on remaining issues with the theory of massive star evolution, binary interaction, wind mass loss, metallicity, and the nuclear equation of state. Importantly, we suggest, but have not proven, that the silent channel for black hole formation may not be the dominant formation modality.

Spatial-frequency channels, shape bias, and adversarial robustness

What spatial frequency information do humans and neural networks use to recognize objects? In neuroscience, critical band masking is an established tool that can reveal the frequency-selective filters used for object recognition. Critical band masking measures the sensitivity of recognition performance to noise added at each spatial frequency. Existing critical band masking studies show that humans recognize periodic patterns (gratings) and letters by means of a spatial-frequency filter (or "channel'') that has a frequency bandwidth of one octave (doubling of frequency). Here, we introduce critical band masking as a task for network-human comparison and test 14 humans and 76 neural networks on 16-way ImageNet categorization in the presence of narrowband noise. We find that humans recognize objects in natural images using the same one-octave-wide channel that they use for letters and gratings, making it a canonical feature of human object recognition. On the other hand, the neural network channel, across various architectures and training strategies, is 2-4 times as wide as the human channel. In other words, networks are vulnerable to high and low frequency noise that does not affect human performance. Adversarial and augmented-image training are commonly used to increase network robustness and shape bias. Does this training align network and human object recognition channels? Three network channel properties (bandwidth, center frequency, peak noise sensitivity) correlate strongly with shape bias (53% variance explained) and with robustness of adversarially-trained networks (74% variance explained). Adversarial training increases robustness but expands the channel bandwidth even further away from the human bandwidth. Thus, critical band masking reveals that the network channel is more than twice as wide as the human channel, and that adversarial training only increases this difference.

Federated learning with distributed fixed design quantum chips and quantum channels

The privacy in classical federated learning can be breached through the use of local gradient results along with engineered queries to the clients. However, quantum communication channels are considered more secure because a measurement on the channel causes a loss of information, which can be detected by the sender. Therefore, the quantum version of federated learning can be used to provide more privacy. Additionally, sending an N dimensional data vector through a quantum channel requires sending log N entangled qubits, which can potentially provide exponential efficiency if the data vector is utilized as quantum states. In this paper, we propose a quantum federated learning model where fixed design quantum chips are operated based on the quantum states sent by a centralized server. Based on the coming superposition states, the clients compute and then send their local gradients as quantum states to the server, where they are aggregated to update parameters. Since the server does not send model parameters, but instead sends the operator as a quantum state, the clients are not required to share the model. This allows for the creation of asynchronous learning models. In addition, the model as a quantum state is fed into client-side chips directly; therefore, it does not require measurements on the upcoming quantum state to obtain model parameters in order to compute gradients. This can provide efficiency over the models where the parameter vector is sent via classical or quantum channels and local gradients are obtained through the obtained values of these parameters.

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.