Some news! I'll be joining
@BrownCSDept
as an assistant professor in fall 2024 :) I'm excited to continue work on participatory, equitable & accountable ML✨
a reminder that I'm recruiting PhD students for Fall 2024 at Brown CS, and applications are due Dec. 15 :) If you're interested in participatory ML, public agency & accountability, identity representations & intersectionality, or related areas - consider applying!
Some news! I'll be joining
@BrownCSDept
as an assistant professor in fall 2024 :) I'm excited to continue work on participatory, equitable & accountable ML✨
Who is ML interpretability meant for, and how can we design methods + interfaces that are truly understandable and relevant for them? Our CHI paper proposes a framework for thinking about these stakeholders beyond categorizations like “domain expert” or “model builder.”
read
@rajiinio
's thread! also: the updated version of this paper/fig includes "deployment bias," or harm arising from mistrust and/or misuse, which is a whole different beast from training data issues
1. Bias can start anywhere in the system - pre-processing, post-processing, with task design, with modeling choices, etc., in addition to issues with the data. The system arrives as the result of a lot of decisions, and any of those decisions can result in a biased outcome.
we can't divorce "an algorithm" or "the data" from the systems & people that created it, and those who will use & be affected by it -- it's about power y'all! bumping this thread of a few papers/books I like that delve deeper into this:
Also, I am recruiting students for next year! If you are a prospective PhD student and think we may have overlapping research interests (or, if you know someone who is) - reach out!!
So proud of Harini Suresh (
@harini824
) for (successfully!) defending a tour de force of a thesis on context and participation in machine learning.
Pictured here: CAML reciprocates the immeasurable support she's given the lab over the course of her PhD 🤩🎉
I'll be at
@FAccTConference
this week presenting "Towards Intersectional Feminist and Participatory ML: A Case Study in Supporting Feminicide Counterdata Collection"!
First, "Towards Intersectional Feminist and Participatory ML: A Case Study in Supporting Feminicide Counterdata Collection" comes out of the Data + Feminism Lab's collaboration with
@ildalatam
and
@feminicidioURY
2/n
New Horizons Award for the most inspiring works goes to: Feminicide & Machine Learning: Detecting Gender-based Violence to Strengthen Civil Sector Activism and Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Configuring Student Assignment Algorithms to Serve Community Needs
really excited to share the first of many videos that
@natalielaomit
and I have been making. our goal is to make ML topics accessible and engaging, enable everyone to participate in public discussions & introduce responsible practices from the start
Feeling grateful for *many* people including my thesis committee (
@arvindsatya1
@kanarinka
and John Guttag), the support of 3 (!) amazing labs (
@mit_caml
@mitvis
and the data + feminism lab), my collaborators, friends, family, etc ❤️
One of the examples I found most disturbing from
@joana_varon
's awesome talk was an algorithmic system deployed in Argentina, with the purpose of predicting a teenage girl's risk of pregnancy from her name and address (1/3)
@joana_varon
Paz Peña &
@joana_varon
talk about these systems (and the ideology around them) through the lens of decolonization: (pg 8-12, and also the whole issue is interesting) (3/3)
@joana_varon
There are so many messed up things about this, from the framing of teenage pregnancy as "predestined", to the way that pitching "big data" as the solution to complicated social problems detracts from actual policy reform (2/3)
and can also reveal users who are currently underserved: e.g., people w/o traditional expertise often have valuable personal knowledge + lived experiences that make them well-suited to catch errors, but debugging tools are primarily designed for people w/ formal ML knowledge.
The more granular breakdown of expertise also helps reveal the heterogeneity in categorizations like "non-expert." Can we instead think about what effective interpretability looks like for people w/ rich personal or instrumental knowledge in areas beyond ML?
Finally, we hope it can inspire designs that are built for previously overlooked users, and that more explicitly characterizing stakeholders can facilitate reflexivity about who is/is not included in design processes. More details in the paper :)
Our paper asks how we can meaningfully apply intersectional feminist + participatory methods *from the start*, to conceptualize + design ML tools that center and aim to challenge power inequalities.
Looking forward, we imagine the framework being used to identify and characterize a broader range of ML stakeholders and their interpretability needs. We also think it can make designing and generalizing from interpretability user studies more straightforward.
note: We view "interpretability" broadly, i.e. any (static or interactive) insight into the system, whether prediction uncertainty, data collection info, more mechanistic explanations, etc. We use “interpretability” because of precedent but welcome ideas re: better/broader terms.
In the paper, we pull from different fields to 1) expand "expertise" into different *types* of knowledge with different *contexts* and 2) distill a multi-level typology of interpretability needs that spans overarching goals, shorter-term objectives, and immediate tasks.
We compared Kaleidoscope to other methods of grouping examples to test models, and did a user study w/ Reddit users & moderators - check out the details at
Importantly, the framework decouples someone's knowledge from their needs: e.g., acting on model outputs is relevant beyond "decision-makers," debugging is impt not only for "ML experts," etc. This creates a more composable language for discovering & characterizing stakeholders
We investigate this question through the lens of a case study: co-designing datasets and models to support the efforts of activists who collect and monitor counterdata (data that's currently neglected by mainstream institutions) about gender-related violence.
@m_deff
@math_rachel
@jovialjoy
@jeremyphoward
@seb_ruder
I think papers are important for people who want to dig in and build on your work; but media like blog posts are a way to reach people outside of your specific field to whom the paper may not be accessible
The paper describes our approach to this case study in detail, and we also hope it can provide inspiration for how to mobilize intersectional feminist values in tech more broadly. P.S. would love to meet up in Seoul if you are here :')
With the interactive system, users identify examples of important concepts, generalize them into larger, representative sets, and specify and test model behavior with them in semantically-meaningful ways
Evaluation/auditing is super important -- it guides what systems are considered state-of-the-art and deployed, and shapes broader research agendas/values in ML
But existing evaluation methods/datasets don't really capture how the kinds of things that are important to people differ widely across contexts & communities, and might change over time
Kaleidoscope is an alternative paradigm for model evaluation that aims to fill this gap, allowing users with deep personal knowledge of their context to translate their implicit expectations of "good model behavior" into concrete example sets and tests
@Aaron_Horowitz
@yonashav
i’m mostly worried about putting the onus on individuals to “fix themselves” when larger issues like poverty or access to education/healthcare might motivate different interventions that are de-prioritized in algorithms that codify an individualistic viewpoint
As a concrete example, it'd be really hard for a moderator of an online forum to ask a Q like "how well does this moderation model flag comments mocking someone's appearance?" -- this involves understanding a high-level concept stemming from the user's personal knowledge
@irenetrampoline
i asked nicole this after the talk - like
@berkustun
said, in the paper there are more details about the transfer learning they did b/w groups. in my experience the success of that type of transfer learning is tied to how similar the groups are