Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
220
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Rishi Bommasani
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.
rate research
Read More
This is the Proceedings of ICML 2021 Workshop on Theoretic Foundation, Criticism, and Application Trend of Explainable AI. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have undoubtedly brought great success to a wide range of applications in computer vision, computational linguistics, and AI. However, foundational principles underlying the DNNs success and their resilience to adversarial attacks are still largely missing. Interpreting and theorizing the internal mechanisms of DNNs becomes a compelling yet controversial topic. This workshop pays a special interest in theoretic foundations, limitations, and new application trends in the scope of XAI. These issues reflect new bottlenecks in the future development of XAI.
Unintended biases in machine learning (ML) models are among the major concerns that must be addressed to maintain public trust in ML. In this paper, we address process fairness of ML models that consists in reducing the dependence of models on sensitive features, without compromising their performance. We revisit the framework FixOut that is inspired in the approach fairness through unawareness to build fairer models. We introduce several improvements such as automating the choice of FixOuts parameters. Also, FixOut was originally proposed to improve fairness of ML models on tabular data. We also demonstrate the feasibility of FixOuts workflow for models on textual data. We present several experimental results that illustrate the fact that FixOut improves process fairness on different classification settings.
Healthcare programs such as Medicaid provide crucial services to vulnerable populations, but due to limited resources, many of the individuals who need these services the most languish on waiting lists. Survival models, e.g. the Cox proportional hazards model, can potentially improve this situation by predicting individuals levels of need, which can then be used to prioritize the waiting lists. Providing care to those in need can prevent institutionalization for those individuals, which both improves quality of life and reduces overall costs. While the benefits of such an approach are clear, care must be taken to ensure that the prioritization process is fair or independent of demographic information-based harmful stereotypes. In this work, we develop multiple fairness definitions for survival models and corresponding fair Cox proportional hazards models to ensure equitable allocation of healthcare resources. We demonstrate the utility of our methods in terms of fairness and predictive accuracy on two publicly available survival datasets.
ML-based predictive systems are increasingly used to support decisions with a critical impact on individuals lives such as college admission, job hiring, child custody, criminal risk assessment, etc. As a result, fairness emerged as an important requirement to guarantee that predictive systems do not discriminate against specific individuals or entire sub-populations, in particular, minorities. Given the inherent subjectivity of viewing the concept of fairness, several notions of fairness have been introduced in the literature. This paper is a survey of fairness notions that, unlike other surveys in the literature, addresses the question of which notion of fairness is most suited to a given real-world scenario and why?. Our attempt to answer this question consists in (1) identifying the set of fairness-related characteristics of the real-world scenario at hand, (2) analyzing the behavior of each fairness notion, and then (3) fitting these two elements to recommend the most suitable fairness notion in every specific setup. The results are summarized in a decision diagram that can be used by practitioners and policy makers to navigate the relatively large catalogue of fairness notions.
Privacy and transparency are two key foundations of trustworthy machine learning. Model explanations offer insights into a models decisions on input data, whereas privacy is primarily concerned with protecting information about the training data. We analyze connections between model explanations and the leakage of sensitive information about the models training set. We investigate the privacy risks of feature-based model explanations using membership inference attacks: quantifying how much model predictions plus their explanations leak information about the presence of a datapoint in the training set of a model. We extensively evaluate membership inference attacks based on feature-based model explanations, over a variety of datasets. We show that backpropagation-based explanations can leak a significant amount of information about individual training datapoints. This is because they reveal statistical information about the decision boundaries of the model about an input, which can reveal its membership. We also empirically investigate the trade-off between privacy and explanation quality, by studying the perturbation-based model explanations.
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
