Independent Ethical Assessment of Text Classification Models: A Hate Speech Detection Case Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07627v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:03:36 GMT
• Title: Independent Ethical Assessment of Text Classification Models: A Hate Speech Detection Case Study
• Authors: Amitoj Singh, Jingshu Chen, Lihao Zhang, Amin Rasekh, Ilana Golbin, Anand Rao
• Abstract summary: An independent ethical assessment of an artificial intelligence system is an impartial examination of the system's development, deployment, and use in alignment with ethical values. This study bridges this gap and designs a holistic independent ethical assessment process for a text classification model with a special focus on the task of hate speech detection.
• Score: 0.5541644538483947
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: An independent ethical assessment of an artificial intelligence system is an impartial examination of the system's development, deployment, and use in alignment with ethical values. System-level qualitative frameworks that describe high-level requirements and component-level quantitative metrics that measure individual ethical dimensions have been developed over the past few years. However, there exists a gap between the two, which hinders the execution of independent ethical assessments in practice. This study bridges this gap and designs a holistic independent ethical assessment process for a text classification model with a special focus on the task of hate speech detection. The assessment is further augmented with protected attributes mining and counterfactual-based analysis to enhance bias assessment. It covers assessments of technical performance, data bias, embedding bias, classification bias, and interpretability. The proposed process is demonstrated through an assessment of a deep hate speech detection model.

Related papers

• Performance evaluation of Reddit Comments using Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing methods in Sentiment Analysis [0.764671395172401]
  We evaluate sentiment analysis methods across a corpus of 58,000 comments on Reddit. Our research expands the scope by evaluating a diverse array of models. Our findings reveal that the RoBERTa model consistently outperforms the baseline models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T03:59:28Z)
• A Comprehensive Rubric for Annotating Pathological Speech [0.0]
  We introduce a comprehensive rubric based on various dimensions of speech quality, including phonetics, fluency, and prosody. The objective is to establish standardized criteria for identifying errors within the speech of individuals with Down syndrome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T16:44:27Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels [84.12514975093826]
  We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-30T20:47:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.