Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.02950v1
• Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 05:23:14 GMT
• Title: Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models
• Abstract summary: Jury learning is a supervised machine learning approach that resolves disagreements explicitly through the metaphor of a jury. We contribute a deep learning architecture that models every annotator in a dataset, samples from annotators' models to populate the jury, then runs inference to classify. Our architecture enables juries that dynamically adapt their composition, explore counterfactuals, and visualize dissent.
• Score: 38.66234866615259
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Whose labels should a machine learning (ML) algorithm learn to emulate? For ML tasks ranging from online comment toxicity to misinformation detection to medical diagnosis, different groups in society may have irreconcilable disagreements about ground truth labels. Supervised ML today resolves these label disagreements implicitly using majority vote, which overrides minority groups' labels. We introduce jury learning, a supervised ML approach that resolves these disagreements explicitly through the metaphor of a jury: defining which people or groups, in what proportion, determine the classifier's prediction. For example, a jury learning model for online toxicity might centrally feature women and Black jurors, who are commonly targets of online harassment. To enable jury learning, we contribute a deep learning architecture that models every annotator in a dataset, samples from annotators' models to populate the jury, then runs inference to classify. Our architecture enables juries that dynamically adapt their composition, explore counterfactuals, and visualize dissent.

Related papers

• LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts [10.704307144706226]
  Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's.<n>We compare predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups.<n>First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators.<n>Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T18:33:15Z)
• Reasoning Jury: Multi-Model Consensus for Evaluating Reasoning Traces [8.727904788574602]
  Reasoning Jury is a system that replaces the single judge with a jury of LLMs.<n>In Reasoning Jury, defects of a reasoning trace and their severity are surfaced through a deliberation.<n>We show that Reasoning Jury with a jury of open-weight models is able to significantly outperform frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T21:00:22Z)
• CyberJurors: A Multi-Agent Simulation Task for E-Commerce Disputes Verdict [59.06704011432714]
  E-commerce platforms have begun recruiting crowdsourced jurors to adjudicate massive volumes of transaction disputes.<n>We introduce a pioneering task, E-commerce Dispute Verdicts (EDV), and present VerdictBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising 6,000 real-world cases.<n>We propose CyberJurors, a multi-agent framework to clarify the dispute logic and regulate the verdict process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T12:07:44Z)
• AIWizards at MULTIPRIDE: A Hierarchical Approach to Slur Reclamation Detection [0.42970700836450487]
  We propose a hierarchical approach to modeling the slur reclamation process.<n>Our core assumption is that members of the LGBTQ+ community are more likely to employ certain slurs in a eclamatory manner.<n> Experimental results on Italian and Spanish show that our approach performs statistically comparable to a strong BERT-based baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T11:01:19Z)
• Bridging the Gap: In-Context Learning for Modeling Human Disagreement [8.011316959982654]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on NLP classification tasks.<n>This study examines whether LLMs can capture multiple perspectives and reflect annotator disagreement in subjective tasks such as hate speech and offensive language detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T14:24:29Z)
• A Survey of Machine Learning Models and Datasets for the Multi-label Classification of Textual Hate Speech in English [3.216132991084434]
  This work presents the first systematic and comprehensive survey of scientific literature on this emerging research landscape in English. We contribute with a concise overview of 28 datasets suited for training multi-label classification models. We identify imbalanced training data, reliance on crowdsourcing platforms, small and sparse datasets, and missing methodological alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:16:31Z)
• Investigating and Mitigating Stereotype-aware Unfairness in LLM-based Recommendations [18.862841015556995]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented language understanding and reasoning capabilities. Recent studies have revealed that LLMs are likely to inherit stereotypes that are embedded ubiquitously in word embeddings. This study reveals a new variant of fairness between stereotype groups containing both users and items, to quantify discrimination against stereotypes in LLM-RS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T15:09:39Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models. This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high. We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• White Men Lead, Black Women Help? Benchmarking and Mitigating Language Agency Social Biases in LLMs [58.27353205269664]
  Social biases can manifest in language agency in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated content.<n>We introduce the Language Agency Bias Evaluation benchmark, which comprehensively evaluates biases in LLMs.<n>Using LABE, we unveil language agency social biases in 3 recent LLMs: ChatGPT, Llama3, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T12:27:54Z)
• Stereotype Detection in LLMs: A Multiclass, Explainable, and Benchmark-Driven Approach [4.908389661988191]
  This paper introduces the Multi-Grain Stereotype (MGS) dataset, consisting of 51,867 instances across gender, race, profession, religion, and other stereotypes. We evaluate various machine learning approaches to establish baselines and fine-tune language models of different architectures and sizes. We employ explainable AI (XAI) tools, including SHAP, LIME, and BertViz, to assess whether the model's learned patterns align with human intuitions about stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T09:31:32Z)
• Explain Thyself Bully: Sentiment Aided Cyberbullying Detection with Explanation [52.3781496277104]
  Cyberbullying has become a big issue with the popularity of different social media networks and online communication apps. Recent laws like "right to explanations" of General Data Protection Regulation have spurred research in developing interpretable models. We develop first interpretable multi-task model called em mExCB for automatic cyberbullying detection from code-mixed languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T07:36:22Z)
• Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning [8.530934084017966]
  We introduce emphCrowdOpinion, an unsupervised learning approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media. We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T22:09:46Z)
• Revealing Unfair Models by Mining Interpretable Evidence [50.48264727620845]
  The popularity of machine learning has increased the risk of unfair models getting deployed in high-stake applications. In this paper, we tackle the novel task of revealing unfair models by mining interpretable evidence. Our method finds highly interpretable and solid evidence to effectively reveal the unfairness of trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-12T20:03:08Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• Learning and Evaluating Representations for Deep One-class Classification [59.095144932794646]
  We present a two-stage framework for deep one-class classification. We first learn self-supervised representations from one-class data, and then build one-class classifiers on learned representations. In experiments, we demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on visual domain one-class classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T23:33:41Z)
• Making ML models fairer through explanations: the case of LimeOut [7.952582509792971]
  Algorithmic decisions are now being used on a daily basis, and based on Machine Learning (ML) processes that may be complex and biased. This raises several concerns given the critical impact that biased decisions may have on individuals or on society as a whole. We show how the simple idea of "feature dropout" followed by an "ensemble approach" can improve model fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-01T19:07:11Z)
• Visual Analysis of Discrimination in Machine Learning [40.678688013911994]
  We propose an interactive visualization tool, DiscriLens, to support a more comprehensive analysis of discrimination in machine learning. By combining an extended Euler diagram with a matrix-based visualization, we develop a novel set visualization to facilitate the exploration and interpretation of discriminatory itemsets. A user study shows that users can interpret the visually encoded information in DiscriLens quickly and accurately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-30T02:07:03Z)

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.