Addressing contingency in algorithmic (mis)information classification:
Toward a responsible machine learning agenda
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.09014v2
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:07:26 GMT
- Title: Addressing contingency in algorithmic (mis)information classification:
Toward a responsible machine learning agenda
- Authors: Andr\'es Dom\'inguez Hern\'andez, Richard Owen, Dan Saattrup Nielsen,
Ryan McConville
- Abstract summary: Data scientists need to take a stance on the objectivity, authoritativeness and legitimacy of the sources of truth" used for model training and testing.
Despite (and due to) their reported high accuracy and performance, ML-driven moderation systems have the potential to shape online public debate and create downstream negative impacts such as undue censorship and the reinforcing of false beliefs.
- Score: 0.9659642285903421
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Machine learning (ML) enabled classification models are becoming increasingly
popular for tackling the sheer volume and speed of online misinformation and
other content that could be identified as harmful. In building these models,
data scientists need to take a stance on the legitimacy, authoritativeness and
objectivity of the sources of ``truth" used for model training and testing.
This has political, ethical and epistemic implications which are rarely
addressed in technical papers. Despite (and due to) their reported high
accuracy and performance, ML-driven moderation systems have the potential to
shape online public debate and create downstream negative impacts such as undue
censorship and the reinforcing of false beliefs. Using collaborative
ethnography and theoretical insights from social studies of science and
expertise, we offer a critical analysis of the process of building ML models
for (mis)information classification: we identify a series of algorithmic
contingencies--key moments during model development that could lead to
different future outcomes, uncertainty and harmful effects as these tools are
deployed by social media platforms. We conclude by offering a tentative path
toward reflexive and responsible development of ML tools for moderating
misinformation and other harmful content online.
Related papers
- The Frontier of Data Erasure: Machine Unlearning for Large Language Models [56.26002631481726]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are foundational to AI advancements.
LLMs pose risks by potentially memorizing and disseminating sensitive, biased, or copyrighted information.
Machine unlearning emerges as a cutting-edge solution to mitigate these concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-23T09:26:15Z) - Rethinking Machine Unlearning for Large Language Models [85.92660644100582]
We explore machine unlearning in the domain of large language models (LLMs)
This initiative aims to eliminate undesirable data influence (e.g., sensitive or illegal information) and the associated model capabilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-13T20:51:58Z) - Analyzing Adversarial Inputs in Deep Reinforcement Learning [53.3760591018817]
We present a comprehensive analysis of the characterization of adversarial inputs, through the lens of formal verification.
We introduce a novel metric, the Adversarial Rate, to classify models based on their susceptibility to such perturbations.
Our analysis empirically demonstrates how adversarial inputs can affect the safety of a given DRL system with respect to such perturbations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T21:58:40Z) - Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs)
We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing.
We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z) - Exploring the Landscape of Machine Unlearning: A Comprehensive Survey
and Taxonomy [17.535417441295074]
Machine unlearning (MU) is gaining increasing attention due to the need to remove or modify predictions made by machine learning (ML) models.
This paper presents a comprehensive survey of MU, covering current state-of-the-art techniques and approaches.
The paper also highlights the challenges that need to be addressed, including attack sophistication, standardization, transferability, interpretability, and resource constraints.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-10T12:02:18Z) - Accountable and Explainable Methods for Complex Reasoning over Text [5.571369922847262]
Accountability and transparency of Machine Learning models have been posed as critical desiderata by works in policy and law, philosophy, and computer science.
This thesis expands our collective knowledge in the areas of accountability and transparency of ML models developed for complex reasoning tasks over text.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-09T15:14:52Z) - Poisoning Attacks and Defenses on Artificial Intelligence: A Survey [3.706481388415728]
Data poisoning attacks represent a type of attack that consists of tampering the data samples fed to the model during the training phase, leading to a degradation in the models accuracy during the inference phase.
This work compiles the most relevant insights and findings found in the latest existing literatures addressing this type of attacks.
A thorough assessment is performed on the reviewed works, comparing the effects of data poisoning on a wide range of ML models in real-world conditions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-21T14:43:38Z) - Towards Model-informed Precision Dosing with Expert-in-the-loop Machine
Learning [0.0]
We consider a ML framework that may accelerate model learning and improve its interpretability by incorporating human experts into the model learning loop.
We propose a novel human-in-the-loop ML framework aimed at dealing with learning problems that the cost of data annotation is high.
With an application to precision dosing, our experimental results show that the approach can learn interpretable rules from data and may potentially lower experts' workload.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-28T03:45:09Z) - Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Survey for
Practitioners [69.02688684221265]
The use of sophisticated statistical models that influence decisions in domains of high societal relevance is on the rise.
Many governments, institutions, and companies are reluctant to their adoption as their output is often difficult to explain in human-interpretable ways.
Recently, the academic literature has proposed a substantial amount of methods for providing interpretable explanations to machine learning models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-09T01:46:34Z) - ML-Doctor: Holistic Risk Assessment of Inference Attacks Against Machine
Learning Models [64.03398193325572]
Inference attacks against Machine Learning (ML) models allow adversaries to learn about training data, model parameters, etc.
We concentrate on four attacks - namely, membership inference, model inversion, attribute inference, and model stealing.
Our analysis relies on a modular re-usable software, ML-Doctor, which enables ML model owners to assess the risks of deploying their models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-04T11:35:13Z)
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.