Rethinking and Recomputing the Value of Machine Learning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15157v2
• Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 15:24:49 GMT
• Title: Rethinking and Recomputing the Value of Machine Learning Models
• Authors: Burcu Sayin, Jie Yang, Xinyue Chen, Andrea Passerini, Fabio Casati,
• Abstract summary: We argue that the prevailing approach to training and evaluating machine learning models often fails to consider their real-world application.<n>Traditional metrics like accuracy and f-score fail to capture the beneficial value of models in such hybrid settings.<n>We introduce a simple yet theoretically sound "value" metric that incorporates task-specific costs for correct predictions, errors, and rejections.
• Score: 16.06614967567121
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we argue that the prevailing approach to training and evaluating machine learning models often fails to consider their real-world application within organizational or societal contexts, where they are intended to create beneficial value for people. We propose a shift in perspective, redefining model assessment and selection to emphasize integration into workflows that combine machine predictions with human expertise, particularly in scenarios requiring human intervention for low-confidence predictions. Traditional metrics like accuracy and f-score fail to capture the beneficial value of models in such hybrid settings. To address this, we introduce a simple yet theoretically sound "value" metric that incorporates task-specific costs for correct predictions, errors, and rejections, offering a practical framework for real-world evaluation. Through extensive experiments, we show that existing metrics fail to capture real-world needs, often leading to suboptimal choices in terms of value when used to rank classifiers. Furthermore, we emphasize the critical role of calibration in determining model value, showing that simple, well-calibrated models can often outperform more complex models that are challenging to calibrate.

Related papers

• Are We Truly Forgetting? A Critical Re-examination of Machine Unlearning Evaluation Protocols [14.961054239793356]
  We conduct a new comprehensive evaluation that employs representation-based evaluations of unlearned model under large-scale scenarios. Our analysis reveals that current state-of-the-art unlearning approaches either completely degrade the representational quality of the unlearned model. We introduce a novel unlearning evaluation setup from a transfer learning perspective, in which the forget set classes exhibit semantic similarity to downstream task classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:11:34Z)
• Controlled Model Debiasing through Minimal and Interpretable Updates [6.089774484591287]
  We introduce the notion of controlled model debiasing, a novel supervised learning task relying on two desideratas. We introduce a novel algorithm for algorithmic fairness, COMMOD, that is both model-agnostic and does not require the sensitive attribute at test time. Our approach combines a concept-based architecture and adversarial learning and we demonstrate through empirical results that it achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art debiasing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T18:03:55Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• LLAVADI: What Matters For Multimodal Large Language Models Distillation [77.73964744238519]
  In this work, we do not propose a new efficient model structure or train small-scale MLLMs from scratch. Our studies involve training strategies, model choices, and distillation algorithms in the knowledge distillation process. By evaluating different benchmarks and proper strategy, even a 2.7B small-scale model can perform on par with larger models with 7B or 13B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-28T06:10:47Z)
• 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)
• OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations [64.85905119836818]
  We propose OLMES, a practical, open standard for reproducible language model evaluations. We identify and review the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community. OLMES supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T17:37:09Z)
• When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another? [33.540506562970776]
  Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches. We present a unified approach to evaluate embedders, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T18:13:46Z)
• A Dynamic Model of Performative Human-ML Collaboration: Theory and Empirical Evidence [2.498836880652668]
  We present a novel framework for thinking about the deployment of machine learning models in a performative, human-ML collaborative system. In our framework, the introduction of ML recommendations changes the data-generating process of human decisions. We find that for many levels of ML performance, humans can improve upon the ML predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T15:38:30Z)
• What is it for a Machine Learning Model to Have a Capability? [0.0]
  We develop an account of machine learning models' capabilities which can be usefully applied to the nascent science of model evaluation. Our core proposal is a conditional analysis of model abilities (CAMA), crudely, a machine learning model has a capability to X just when it would reliably succeed at doing X if it 'tried'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T23:03:52Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Non-Invasive Fairness in Learning through the Lens of Data Drift [88.37640805363317]
  We show how to improve the fairness of Machine Learning models without altering the data or the learning algorithm. We use a simple but key insight: the divergence of trends between different populations, and, consecutively, between a learned model and minority populations, is analogous to data drift. We explore two strategies (model-splitting and reweighing) to resolve this drift, aiming to improve the overall conformance of models to the underlying data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:30:42Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory [64.71038763708161]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) What further sets these models apart is the massive amounts of world knowledge they internalize during pretraining. How the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-09T18:58:29Z)
• Synthetic Model Combination: An Instance-wise Approach to Unsupervised Ensemble Learning [92.89846887298852]
  Consider making a prediction over new test data without any opportunity to learn from a training set of labelled data. Give access to a set of expert models and their predictions alongside some limited information about the dataset used to train them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T10:20:31Z)
• 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)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• On the Value of ML Models [7.301530330533432]
  We argue that, when establishing and benchmarking Machine Learning (ML) models, the research community should favour evaluation metrics that better capture the value delivered by their model in practical applications. For a specific class of use cases -- selective classification -- we show that not only can it be simple enough to do, but that it has import consequences and provides insights what to look for in a good'' ML model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T16:32:08Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)
• Accurate and Robust Feature Importance Estimation under Distribution Shifts [49.58991359544005]
  PRoFILE is a novel feature importance estimation method. We show significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches, both in terms of fidelity and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T05:29:01Z)
• Insights into Performance Fitness and Error Metrics for Machine Learning [1.827510863075184]
  Machine learning (ML) is the field of training machines to achieve high level of cognition and perform human-like analysis. This paper examines a number of the most commonly-used performance fitness and error metrics for regression and classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-17T22:59:04Z)
• Fairness by Explicability and Adversarial SHAP Learning [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that emphasises the role of an external auditor and model explicability. We develop a framework for mitigating model bias using regularizations constructed from the SHAP values of an adversarial surrogate model. We demonstrate our approaches using gradient and adaptive boosting on: a synthetic dataset, the UCI Adult (Census) dataset and a real-world credit scoring dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-11T14:36:34Z)

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.