Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05256v1
• Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 04:00:44 GMT
• Title: Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice
• Authors: Ben Hutchinson, Negar Rostamzadeh, Christina Greer, Katherine Heller, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 13.963766987258161
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Forming a reliable judgement of a machine learning (ML) model's appropriateness for an application ecosystem is critical for its responsible use, and requires considering a broad range of factors including harms, benefits, and responsibilities. In practice, however, evaluations of ML models frequently focus on only 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. Through an empirical study of papers from recent high-profile conferences in the Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing communities, we demonstrate a general focus on a handful of evaluation methods. By considering the metrics and test data distributions used in these methods, we draw attention to which properties of models are centered in the field, revealing the properties that are frequently neglected or sidelined during evaluation. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts; these include commitments to consequentialism, abstractability from context, the quantifiability of impacts, the limited role of model inputs in evaluation, and the equivalence of different failure modes. Shedding light on these assumptions enables us to question their appropriateness for ML system contexts, pointing the way towards more contextualized evaluation methodologies for robustly examining the trustworthiness of ML models

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models [53.84677081899392]
  KIEval is a Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation framework for large language models. It incorporates an LLM-powered "interactor" role for the first time to accomplish a dynamic contamination-resilient evaluation. Extensive experiments on seven leading LLMs across five datasets validate KIEval's effectiveness and generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T01:30:39Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
  This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research. We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models. This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification [0.491574468325115]
  We present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T12:25:27Z)
• A Framework for Auditing Multilevel Models using Explainability Methods [2.578242050187029]
  An audit framework for technical assessment of regressions is proposed. The focus is on three aspects, model, discrimination, and transparency and explainability. It is demonstrated that popular explainability methods, such as SHAP and LIME, underperform in accuracy when interpreting these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T17:53:21Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.