Spot Check Equivalence: an Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation Mechanisms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13567v1
• Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 06:57:07 GMT
• Title: Spot Check Equivalence: an Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation Mechanisms
• Authors: Shengwei Xu, Yichi Zhang, Paul Resnick, Grant Schoenebeck
• Abstract summary: Two prevalent paradigms, spot-checking and peer prediction, enable the design of mechanisms to evaluate and incentivize high-quality data from human labelers. We show that two of these metrics are actually the same within certain contexts and explain the divergence of the third. We present two approaches to compute spot check equivalence in various contexts, where simulation results verify the effectiveness of our proposed metric.
• Score: 15.542532119818794
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Because high-quality data is like oxygen for AI systems, effectively eliciting information from crowdsourcing workers has become a first-order problem for developing high-performance machine learning algorithms. Two prevalent paradigms, spot-checking and peer prediction, enable the design of mechanisms to evaluate and incentivize high-quality data from human labelers. So far, at least three metrics have been proposed to compare the performances of these techniques [33, 8, 3]. However, different metrics lead to divergent and even contradictory results in various contexts. In this paper, we harmonize these divergent stories, showing that two of these metrics are actually the same within certain contexts and explain the divergence of the third. Moreover, we unify these different contexts by introducing \textit{Spot Check Equivalence}, which offers an interpretable metric for the effectiveness of a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we present two approaches to compute spot check equivalence in various contexts, where simulation results verify the effectiveness of our proposed metric.

Related papers

• Rethinking Distance Metrics for Counterfactual Explainability [53.436414009687]
  We investigate a framing for counterfactual generation methods that considers counterfactuals not as independent draws from a region around the reference, but as jointly sampled with the reference from the underlying data distribution. We derive a distance metric, tailored for counterfactual similarity that can be applied to a broad range of settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T15:06:50Z)
• Counterfactual Explanation via Search in Gaussian Mixture Distributed Latent Space [19.312306559210125]
  Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) are an important tool in Algorithmic Recourse for addressing two questions. guiding the user's interaction with AI systems by proposing easy-to-understand explanations is essential for the trustworthy adoption and long-term acceptance of AI systems. We introduce a new method to generate CEs for a pre-trained binary classifier by first shaping the latent space of an autoencoder to be a mixture of Gaussian distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T10:21:26Z)
• Exploiting Observation Bias to Improve Matrix Completion [16.57405742112833]
  We consider a variant of matrix completion where entries are revealed in a biased manner. The goal is to exploit the shared information between the bias and the outcome of interest to improve predictions. We find that with this two-stage algorithm, the estimates have 30x smaller mean squared error compared to traditional matrix completion methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T20:48:35Z)
• MAUVE Scores for Generative Models: Theory and Practice [95.86006777961182]
  We present MAUVE, a family of comparison measures between pairs of distributions such as those encountered in the generative modeling of text or images. We find that MAUVE can quantify the gaps between the distributions of human-written text and those of modern neural language models. We demonstrate in the vision domain that MAUVE can identify known properties of generated images on par with or better than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-30T07:37:40Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Refining Self-Supervised Learning in Imaging: Beyond Linear Metric [25.96406219707398]
  We introduce in this paper a new statistical perspective, exploiting the Jaccard similarity metric, as a measure-based metric. Specifically, our proposed metric may be interpreted as a dependence measure between two adapted projections learned from the so-called latent representations. To the best of our knowledge, this effectively non-linearly fused information embedded in the Jaccard similarity, is novel to self-supervision learning with promising results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T19:25:05Z)
• Toward Learning Human-aligned Cross-domain Robust Models by Countering Misaligned Features [17.57706440574503]
  Machine learning has demonstrated remarkable prediction accuracy over i.i.d data, but the accuracy often drops when tested with data from another distribution. In this paper, we aim to offer another view of this problem in a perspective assuming the reason behind this accuracy drop is the reliance of models on the features that are not aligned well with how a data annotator considers similar. We extend the conventional generalization error bound to a new one for this setup with the knowledge of how the misaligned features are associated with the label.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-05T22:14:41Z)
• Systematic Assessment of Hyperdimensional Computing for Epileptic Seizure Detection [4.249341912358848]
  This work is to perform a systematic assessment of the HD computing framework for the detection of epileptic seizures. We test two previously implemented features as well as several novel approaches with HD computing on epileptic seizure detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T15:11:08Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)
• 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)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.