-
The State of Documentation Practices of Third-party Machine Learning Models and Datasets
Authors:
Ernesto Lang Oreamuno,
Rohan Faiyaz Khan,
Abdul Ali Bangash,
Catherine Stinson,
Bram Adams
Abstract:
Model stores offer third-party ML models and datasets for easy project integration, minimizing coding efforts. One might hope to find detailed specifications of these models and datasets in the documentation, leveraging documentation standards such as model and dataset cards. In this study, we use statistical analysis and hybrid card sorting to assess the state of the practice of documenting model…
▽ More
Model stores offer third-party ML models and datasets for easy project integration, minimizing coding efforts. One might hope to find detailed specifications of these models and datasets in the documentation, leveraging documentation standards such as model and dataset cards. In this study, we use statistical analysis and hybrid card sorting to assess the state of the practice of documenting model cards and dataset cards in one of the largest model stores in use today--Hugging Face (HF). Our findings show that only 21,902 models (39.62\%) and 1,925 datasets (28.48\%) have documentation. Furthermore, we observe inconsistency in ethics and transparency-related documentation for ML models and datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 22 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Collaboration or Corporate Capture? Quantifying NLP's Reliance on Industry Artifacts and Contributions
Authors:
Will Aitken,
Mohamed Abdalla,
Karen Rudie,
Catherine Stinson
Abstract:
Impressive performance of pre-trained models has garnered public attention and made news headlines in recent years. Almost always, these models are produced by or in collaboration with industry. Using them is critical for competing on natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks and correspondingly to stay relevant in NLP research. We surveyed 100 papers published at EMNLP 2022 to determine the de…
▽ More
Impressive performance of pre-trained models has garnered public attention and made news headlines in recent years. Almost always, these models are produced by or in collaboration with industry. Using them is critical for competing on natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks and correspondingly to stay relevant in NLP research. We surveyed 100 papers published at EMNLP 2022 to determine the degree to which researchers rely on industry models, other artifacts, and contributions to publish in prestigious NLP venues and found that the ratio of their citation is at least three times greater than what would be expected. Our work serves as a scaffold to enable future researchers to more accurately address whether: 1) Collaboration with industry is still collaboration in the absence of an alternative or 2) if NLP inquiry has been captured by the motivations and research direction of private corporations.
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2024; v1 submitted 6 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Authors:
Aarohi Srivastava,
Abhinav Rastogi,
Abhishek Rao,
Abu Awal Md Shoeb,
Abubakar Abid,
Adam Fisch,
Adam R. Brown,
Adam Santoro,
Aditya Gupta,
Adrià Garriga-Alonso,
Agnieszka Kluska,
Aitor Lewkowycz,
Akshat Agarwal,
Alethea Power,
Alex Ray,
Alex Warstadt,
Alexander W. Kocurek,
Ali Safaya,
Ali Tazarv,
Alice Xiang,
Alicia Parrish,
Allen Nie,
Aman Hussain,
Amanda Askell,
Amanda Dsouza
, et al. (426 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-futur…
▽ More
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2023; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Revisiting Popularity and Demographic Biases in Recommender Evaluation and Effectiveness
Authors:
Nicola Neophytou,
Bhaskar Mitra,
Catherine Stinson
Abstract:
Recommendation algorithms are susceptible to popularity bias: a tendency to recommend popular items even when they fail to meet user needs. A related issue is that the recommendation quality can vary by demographic groups. Marginalized groups or groups that are under-represented in the training data may receive less relevant recommendations from these algorithms compared to others. In a recent stu…
▽ More
Recommendation algorithms are susceptible to popularity bias: a tendency to recommend popular items even when they fail to meet user needs. A related issue is that the recommendation quality can vary by demographic groups. Marginalized groups or groups that are under-represented in the training data may receive less relevant recommendations from these algorithms compared to others. In a recent study, Ekstrand et al. investigate how recommender performance varies according to popularity and demographics, and find statistically significant differences in recommendation utility between binary genders on two datasets, and significant effects based on age on one dataset. Here we reproduce those results and extend them with additional analyses. We find statistically significant differences in recommender performance by both age and gender. We observe that recommendation utility steadily degrades for older users, and is lower for women than men. We also find that the utility is higher for users from countries with more representation in the dataset. In addition, we find that total usage and the popularity of consumed content are strong predictors of recommender performance and also vary significantly across demographic groups.
△ Less
Submitted 15 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
Algorithms are not neutral: Bias in collaborative filtering
Authors:
Catherine Stinson
Abstract:
Discussions of algorithmic bias tend to focus on examples where either the data or the people building the algorithms are biased. This gives the impression that clean data and good intentions could eliminate bias. The neutrality of the algorithms themselves is defended by prominent Artificial Intelligence researchers. However, algorithms are not neutral. In addition to biased data and biased algor…
▽ More
Discussions of algorithmic bias tend to focus on examples where either the data or the people building the algorithms are biased. This gives the impression that clean data and good intentions could eliminate bias. The neutrality of the algorithms themselves is defended by prominent Artificial Intelligence researchers. However, algorithms are not neutral. In addition to biased data and biased algorithm makers, AI algorithms themselves can be biased. This is illustrated with the example of collaborative filtering, which is known to suffer from popularity, and homogenizing biases. Iterative information filtering algorithms in general create a selection bias in the course of learning from user responses to documents that the algorithm recommended. These are not merely biases in the statistical sense; these statistical biases can cause discriminatory outcomes. Data points on the margins of distributions of human data tend to correspond to marginalized people. Popularity and homogenizing biases have the effect of further marginalizing the already marginal. This source of bias warrants serious attention given the ubiquity of algorithmic decision-making.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
