Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userLessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural Data in Machine Learning
469
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Eun Seo Jo
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
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.
rate research
Read More
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.
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.
Incremental gradient (IG) methods, such as stochastic gradient descent and its variants are commonly used for large scale optimization in machine learning. Despite the sustained effort to make IG methods more data-efficient, it remains an open question how to select a training data subset that can theoretically and practically perform on par with the full dataset. Here we develop CRAIG, a method to select a weighted subset (or coreset) of training data that closely estimates the full gradient by maximizing a submodular function. We prove that applying IG to this subset is guaranteed to converge to the (near)optimal solution with the same convergence rate as that of IG for convex optimization. As a result, CRAIG achieves a speedup that is inversely proportional to the size of the subset. To our knowledge, this is the first rigorous method for data-efficient training of general machine learning models. Our extensive set of experiments show that CRAIG, while achieving practically the same solution, speeds up various IG methods by up to 6x for logistic regression and 3x for training deep neural networks.
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.
The universal mathematical form of machine-learning potentials (MLPs) shifts the core of development of interatomic potentials to collecting proper training data. Ideally, the training set should encompass diverse local atomic environments but the conventional approach is prone to sampling similar configurations repeatedly, mainly due to the Boltzmann statistics. As such, practitioners handpick a large pool of distinct configurations manually, stretching the development period significantly. Herein, we suggest a novel sampling method optimized for gathering diverse yet relevant configurations semi-automatically. This is achieved by applying the metadynamics with the descriptor for the local atomic environment as a collective variable. As a result, the simulation is automatically steered toward unvisited local environment space such that each atom experiences diverse chemical environments without redundancy. We apply the proposed metadynamics sampling to H:Pt(111), GeTe, and Si systems. Throughout the examples, a small number of metadynamics trajectories can provide reference structures necessary for training high-fidelity MLPs. By proposing a semi-automatic sampling method tuned for MLPs, the present work paves the way to wider applications of MLPs to many challenging applications.
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
