Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMeasuring Social Biases of Crowd Workers using Counterfactual Queries
110
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Bhavya Ghai
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Social biases based on gender, race, etc. have been shown to pollute machine learning (ML) pipeline predominantly via biased training datasets. Crowdsourcing, a popular cost-effective measure to gather labeled training datasets, is not immune to the inherent social biases of crowd workers. To ensure such social biases arent passed onto the curated datasets, its important to know how biased each crowd worker is. In this work, we propose a new method based on counterfactual fairness to quantify the degree of inherent social bias in each crowd worker. This extra information can be leveraged together with individual worker responses to curate a less biased dataset.
rate research
Read More
The Word Embedding Association Test shows that GloVe and word2vec word embeddings exhibit human-like implicit biases based on gender, race, and other social constructs (Caliskan et al., 2017). Meanwhile, research on learning reusable text representations has begun to explore sentence-level texts, with some sentence encoders seeing enthusiastic adoption. Accordingly, we extend the Word Embedding Association Test to measure bias in sentence encoders. We then test several sentence encoders, including state-of-the-art methods such as ELMo and BERT, for the social biases studied in prior work and two important biases that are difficult or impossible to test at the word level. We observe mixed results including suspicious patterns of sensitivity that suggest the tests assumptions may not hold in general. We conclude by proposing directions for future work on measuring bias in sentence encoders.
Pretrained language models, especially masked language models (MLMs) have seen success across many NLP tasks. However, there is ample evidence that they use the cultural biases that are undoubtedly present in the corpora they are trained on, implicitly creating harm with biased representations. To measure some forms of social bias in language models against protected demographic groups in the US, we introduce the Crowdsourced Stereotype Pairs benchmark (CrowS-Pairs). CrowS-Pairs has 1508 examples that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of bias, like race, religion, and age. In CrowS-Pairs a model is presented with two sentences: one that is more stereotyping and another that is less stereotyping. The data focuses on stereotypes about historically disadvantaged groups and contrasts them with advantaged groups. We find that all three of the widely-used MLMs we evaluate substantially favor sentences that express stereotypes in every category in CrowS-Pairs. As work on building less biased models advances, this dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress.
Flow-like experiences at work are important for productivity and worker well-being. However, it is difficult to objectively detect when workers are experiencing flow in their work. In this paper, we investigate how to predict a workers focus state based on physiological signals. We conducted a lab study to collect physiological data from knowledge workers experienced different levels of flow while performing work tasks. We used the nine characteristics of flow to design tasks that would induce different focus states. A manipulation check using the Flow Short Scale verified that participants experienced three distinct flow states, one overly challenging non-flow state, and two types of flow states, balanced flow, and automatic flow. We built machine learning classifiers that can distinguish between non-flow and flow states with 0.889 average AUC and rest states from working states with 0.98 average AUC. The results show that physiological sensing can detect focused flow states of knowledge workers and can enable ways to for individuals and organizations to improve both productivity and worker satisfaction.
While work in fields of CSCW (Computer Supported Collaborative Work), Psychology and Social Sciences have progressed our understanding of team processes and their effect performance and effectiveness, current methods rely on observations or self-report, with little work directed towards studying team processes with quantifiable measures based on behavioral data. In this report we discuss work tackling this open problem with a focus on understanding individual differences and its effect on team adaptation, and further explore the effect of these factors on team performance as both an outcome and a process. We specifically discuss our contribution in terms of methods that augment survey data and behavioral data that allow us to gain more insight on team performance as well as develop a method to evaluate adaptation and performance across and within a group. To make this problem more tractable we chose to focus on specific types of environments, Alternate Reality Games (ARGs), and for several reasons. First, these types of games involve setups that are similar to a real-world setup, e.g., communication through slack or email. Second, they are more controllable than real environments allowing us to embed stimuli if needed. Lastly, they allow us to collect data needed to understand decisions and communications made through the entire duration of the experience, which makes team processes more transparent than otherwise possible. In this report we discuss the work we did so far and demonstrate the efficacy of the approach.
Today, the prominence of data science within organizations has given rise to teams of data science workers collaborating on extracting insights from data, as opposed to individual data scientists working alone. However, we still lack a deep understanding of how data science workers collaborate in practice. In this work, we conducted an online survey with 183 participants who work in various aspects of data science. We focused on their reported interactions with each other (e.g., managers with engineers) and with different tools (e.g., Jupyter Notebook). We found that data science teams are extremely collaborative and work with a variety of stakeholders and tools during the six common steps of a data science workflow (e.g., clean data and train model). We also found that the collaborative practices workers employ, such as documentation, vary according to the kinds of tools they use. Based on these findings, we discuss design implications for supporting data science team collaborations and future research directions.
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
