Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userInvestigating Human + Machine Complementarity for Recidivism Predictions
319
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Sarah Tan
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.
rate research
Read More
Humans are the final decision makers in critical tasks that involve ethical and legal concerns, ranging from recidivism prediction, to medical diagnosis, to fighting against fake news. Although machine learning models can sometimes achieve impressive performance in these tasks, these tasks are not amenable to full automation. To realize the potential of machine learning for improving human decisions, it is important to understand how assistance from machine learning models affects human performance and human agency. In this paper, we use deception detection as a testbed and investigate how we can harness explanations and predictions of machine learning models to improve human performance while retaining human agency. We propose a spectrum between full human agency and full automation, and develop varying levels of machine assistance along the spectrum that gradually increase the influence of machine predictions. We find that without showing predicted labels, explanations alone slightly improve human performance in the end task. In comparison, human performance is greatly improved by showing predicted labels (>20% relative improvement) and can be further improved by explicitly suggesting strong machine performance. Interestingly, when predicted labels are shown, explanations of machine predictions induce a similar level of accuracy as an explicit statement of strong machine performance. Our results demonstrate a tradeoff between human performance and human agency and show that explanations of machine predictions can moderate this tradeoff.
A growing body of work shows that many problems in fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in machine learning systems are rooted in decisions surrounding the data collection and annotation process. In spite of its fundamental nature however, data collection remains an overlooked part of the machine learning (ML) pipeline. In this paper, we argue that a new specialization should be formed within ML that is focused on methodologies for data collection and annotation: efforts that require institutional frameworks and procedures. Specifically for sociocultural data, parallels can be drawn from archives and libraries. Archives are the longest standing communal effort to gather human information and archive scholars have already developed the language and procedures to address and discuss many challenges pertaining to data collection such as consent, power, inclusivity, transparency, and ethics & privacy. We discuss these five key approaches in document collection practices in archives that can inform data collection in sociocultural ML. By showing data collection practices from another field, we encourage ML research to be more cognizant and systematic in data collection and draw from interdisciplinary expertise.
Understanding and removing bias from the decisions made by machine learning models is essential to avoid discrimination against unprivileged groups. Despite recent progress in algorithmic fairness, there is still no clear answer as to which bias-mitigation approaches are most effective. Evaluation strategies are typically use-case specific, rely on data with unclear bias, and employ a fixed policy to convert model outputs to decision outcomes. To address these problems, we performed a systematic comparison of a number of popular fairness algorithms applicable to supervised classification. Our study is the most comprehensive of its kind. It utilizes three real and four synthetic datasets, and two different ways of converting model outputs to decisions. It considers fairness, predictive-performance, calibration quality, and speed of 28 different modelling pipelines, corresponding to both fairness-unaware and fairness-aware algorithms. We found that fairness-unaware algorithms typically fail to produce adequately fair models and that the simplest algorithms are not necessarily the fairest ones. We also found that fairness-aware algorithms can induce fairness without material drops in predictive power. Finally, we found that dataset idiosyncracies (e.g., degree of intrinsic unfairness, nature of correlations) do affect the performance of fairness-aware approaches. Our results allow the practitioner to narrow down the approach(es) they would like to adopt without having to know in advance their fairness requirements.
Machine learning (ML) currently exerts an outsized influence on the world, increasingly affecting communities and institutional practices. It is therefore critical that we question vague conceptions of the field as value-neutral or universally beneficial, and investigate what specific values the field is advancing. In this paper, we present a rigorous examination of the values of the field by quantitatively and qualitatively analyzing 100 highly cited ML papers published at premier ML conferences, ICML and NeurIPS. We annotate key features of papers which reveal their values: how they justify their choice of project, which aspects they uplift, their consideration of potential negative consequences, and their institutional affiliations and funding sources. We find that societal needs are typically very loosely connected to the choice of project, if mentioned at all, and that consideration of negative consequences is extremely rare. We identify 67 values that are uplifted in machine learning research, and, of these, we find that papers most frequently justify and assess themselves based on performance, generalization, efficiency, researcher understanding, novelty, and building on previous work. We present extensive textual evidence and analysis of how these values are operationalized. Notably, we find that each of these top values is currently being defined and applied with assumptions and implications generally supporting the centralization of power. Finally, we find increasingly close ties between these highly cited papers and tech companies and elite universities.
Trauma mortality results from a multitude of non-linear dependent risk factors including patient demographics, injury characteristics, medical care provided, and characteristics of medical facilities; yet traditional approach attempted to capture these relationships using rigid regression models. We hypothesized that a transfer learning based machine learning algorithm could deeply understand a trauma patients condition and accurately identify individuals at high risk for mortality without relying on restrictive regression model criteria. Anonymous patient visit data were obtained from years 2007-2014 of the National Trauma Data Bank. Patients with incomplete vitals, unknown outcome, or missing demographics data were excluded. All patient visits occurred in U.S. hospitals, and of the 2,007,485 encounters that were retrospectively examined, 8,198 resulted in mortality (0.4%). The machine intelligence model was evaluated on its sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient. Our model achieved similar performance in age-specific comparison models and generalized well when applied to all ages simultaneously. While testing for confounding factors, we discovered that excluding fall-related injuries boosted performance for adult trauma patients; however, it reduced performance for children. The machine intelligence model described here demonstrates similar performance to contemporary machine intelligence models without requiring restrictive regression model criteria or extensive medical expertise.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
