Research Papers

DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety

Lora Aroyo, Alex S. Taylor, Mark Diaz +5

Machine learning approaches often require training and evaluation datasets with a clear separation between positive and negative examples. This risks simplifying and even obscuring the inherent subjectivity present in many tasks. Preserving such variance in content and diversity in datasets is often expensive and laborious. This is especially troubling when building safety datasets for conversational AI systems, as safety is both socially and culturally situated. To demonstrate this crucial aspect of conversational AI safety, and to facilitate in-depth model performance analyses, we introduce the DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset that contains fine-grained demographic information about raters, high replication of ratings per item to ensure statistical power for analyses, and encodes rater votes as distributions across different demographics to allow for in-depth explorations of different aggregation strategies. In short, the DICES dataset enables the observation and measurement of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in the context of conversational AI safety. We also illustrate how the dataset offers a basis for establishing metrics to show how raters' ratings can intersects with demographic categories such as racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and genders. The goal of DICES is to be used as a shared resource and benchmark that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluation of conversational AI systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital interventions, including Generative AI (GenAI) and Human-Centered AI (HCAI), are increasingly used to expand access to digital psychiatry and mental health care. This PRISMA-ScR scoping review maps the landscape of AI-driven mental health (mHealth) technologies across five critical phases: pre-treatment (screening/triage), treatment (therapeutic support), post-treatment (remote patient monitoring), clinical education, and population-level prevention. We synthesized 36 empirical studies implemented through early 2024, focusing on Large Language Models (LLMs), machine learning (ML) models, and autonomous conversational agents. Key use cases involve referral triage, empathic communication enhancement, and AI-assisted psychotherapy delivered via chatbots and voice agents. While benefits include reduced wait times and increased patient engagement, we address recurring challenges like algorithmic bias, data privacy, and human-AI collaboration barriers. By introducing a novel four-pillar framework, this review provides a comprehensive roadmap for AI-augmented mental health care, offering actionable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to develop safe, effective, and equitable digital health interventions.

Towards Unbiased and Accurate Deferral to Multiple Experts

Vijay Keswani, Matthew Lease, Krishnaram Kenthapadi

Machine learning models are often implemented in cohort with humans in the pipeline, with the model having an option to defer to a domain expert in cases where it has low confidence in its inference. Our goal is to design mechanisms for ensuring accuracy and fairness in such prediction systems that combine machine learning model inferences and domain expert predictions. Prior work on "deferral systems" in classification settings has focused on the setting of a pipeline with a single expert and aimed to accommodate the inaccuracies and biases of this expert to simultaneously learn an inference model and a deferral system. Our work extends this framework to settings where multiple experts are available, with each expert having their own domain of expertise and biases. We propose a framework that simultaneously learns a classifier and a deferral system, with the deferral system choosing to defer to one or more human experts in cases of input where the classifier has low confidence. We test our framework on a synthetic dataset and a content moderation dataset with biased synthetic experts, and show that it significantly improves the accuracy and fairness of the final predictions, compared to the baselines. We also collect crowdsourced labels for the content moderation task to construct a real-world dataset for the evaluation of hybrid machine-human frameworks and show that our proposed learning framework outperforms baselines on this real-world dataset as well.

While Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly expanding more areas of application, little has been applied to make deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) more comprehensible. As RL becomes ubiquitous and used in critical and general public applications, it is essential to develop methods that make it better understood and more interpretable. This study proposes a novel approach to explain cooperative strategies in multiagent RL using Shapley values, a game theory concept used in XAI that successfully explains the rationale behind decisions taken by Machine Learning algorithms. Through testing common assumptions of this technique in two cooperation-centered socially challenging multi-agent environments environments, this article argues that Shapley values are a pertinent way to evaluate the contribution of players in a cooperative multi-agent RL context. To palliate the high overhead of this method, Shapley values are approximated using Monte Carlo sampling. Experimental results on Multiagent Particle and Sequential Social Dilemmas show that Shapley values succeed at estimating the contribution of each agent. These results could have implications that go beyond games in economics, (e.g., for non-discriminatory decision making, ethical and responsible AI-derived decisions or policy making under fairness constraints). They also expose how Shapley values only give general explanations about a model and cannot explain a single run, episode nor justify precise actions taken by agents. Future work should focus on addressing these critical aspects.

Although deep face recognition has achieved impressive progress in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding discrimination based on skin tone, questioning their deployment into real-world scenarios. In this paper, we aim to systematically and scientifically study this bias from both data and algorithm aspects. First, using the dermatologist approved Fitzpatrick Skin Type classification system and Individual Typology Angle, we contribute a benchmark called Identity Shades (IDS) database, which effectively quantifies the degree of the bias with respect to skin tone in existing face recognition algorithms and commercial APIs. Further, we provide two skin-tone aware training datasets, called BUPT-Globalface dataset and BUPT-Balancedface dataset, to remove bias in training data. Finally, to mitigate the algorithmic bias, we propose a novel meta-learning algorithm, called Meta Balanced Network (MBN), which learns adaptive margins in large margin loss such that the model optimized by this loss can perform fairly across people with different skin tones. To determine the margins, our method optimizes a meta skewness loss on a clean and unbiased meta set and utilizes backward-on-backward automatic differentiation to perform a second order gradient descent step on the current margins. Extensive experiments show that MBN successfully mitigates bias and learns more balanced performance for people with different skin tones in face recognition. The proposed datasets are available at http://www.whdeng.cn/RFW/index.html.

With the rapid evolution of the Internet and the exponential proliferation of information, users encounter information overload and the conundrum of choice. Personalized recommendation systems play a pivotal role in alleviating this burden by aiding users in filtering and selecting information tailored to their preferences and requirements. Such systems not only enhance user experience and satisfaction but also furnish opportunities for businesses and platforms to augment user engagement, sales, and advertising efficacy.This paper undertakes a comparative analysis between the operational mechanisms of traditional e-commerce commodity classification systems and personalized recommendation systems. It delineates the significance and application of personalized recommendation systems across e-commerce, content information, and media domains. Furthermore, it delves into the challenges confronting personalized recommendation systems in e-commerce, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, scalability, and the cold start problem. Strategies to address these challenges are elucidated.Subsequently, the paper outlines a personalized recommendation system leveraging the BERT model and nearest neighbor algorithm, specifically tailored to address the exigencies of the eBay e-commerce platform. The efficacy of this recommendation system is substantiated through manual evaluation, and a practical application operational guide and structured output recommendation results are furnished to ensure the system's operability and scalability.

Beyond Fair Pay: Ethical Implications of NLP Crowdsourcing

Boaz Shmueli, Jan Fell, Soumya Ray +1

The use of crowdworkers in NLP research is growing rapidly, in tandem with the exponential increase in research production in machine learning and AI. Ethical discussion regarding the use of crowdworkers within the NLP research community is typically confined in scope to issues related to labor conditions such as fair pay. We draw attention to the lack of ethical considerations related to the various tasks performed by workers, including labeling, evaluation, and production. We find that the Final Rule, the common ethical framework used by researchers, did not anticipate the use of online crowdsourcing platforms for data collection, resulting in gaps between the spirit and practice of human-subjects ethics in NLP research. We enumerate common scenarios where crowdworkers performing NLP tasks are at risk of harm. We thus recommend that researchers evaluate these risks by considering the three ethical principles set up by the Belmont Report. We also clarify some common misconceptions regarding the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application. We hope this paper will serve to reopen the discussion within our community regarding the ethical use of crowdworkers.

Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms

Guha Balakrishnan, Yuanjun Xiong, Wei Xia +1

Measuring algorithmic bias is crucial both to assess algorithmic fairness, and to guide the improvement of algorithms. Current methods to measure algorithmic bias in computer vision, which are based on observational datasets, are inadequate for this task because they conflate algorithmic bias with dataset bias. To address this problem we develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms, which manipulates directly the attributes of interest, e.g., gender and skin tone, in order to reveal causal links between attribute variation and performance change. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic ``transects'' of matched sample images that are designed to differ along specific attributes while leaving other attributes constant. A crucial aspect of our approach is relying on the perception of human observers, both to guide manipulations, and to measure algorithmic bias. Besides allowing the measurement of algorithmic bias, synthetic transects have other advantages with respect to observational datasets: they sample attributes more evenly allowing for more straightforward bias analysis on minority and intersectional groups, they enable prediction of bias in new scenarios, they greatly reduce ethical and legal challenges, and they are economical and fast to obtain, helping make bias testing affordable and widely available. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms. The two methods reach different conclusions. While the observational method reports gender and skin color biases, the experimental method reveals biases due to gender, hair length, age, and facial hair.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to revolutionize clinical practices, including improving diagnostic accuracy and surgical decision-making, while also reducing costs and manpower. However, it is important to recognize that these systems may perpetuate social inequities or demonstrate biases, such as those based on race or gender. Such biases can occur before, during, or after the development of AI models, making it critical to understand and address potential biases to enable the accurate and reliable application of AI models in clinical settings. To mitigate bias concerns during model development, we surveyed recent publications on different debiasing methods in the fields of biomedical natural language processing (NLP) or computer vision (CV). Then we discussed the methods that have been applied in the biomedical domain to address bias. We performed our literature search on PubMed, ACM digital library, and IEEE Xplore of relevant articles published between January 2018 and December 2023 using multiple combinations of keywords. We then filtered the result of 10,041 articles automatically with loose constraints, and manually inspected the abstracts of the remaining 890 articles to identify the 55 articles included in this review. Additional articles in the references are also included in this review. We discuss each method and compare its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we review other potential methods from the general domain that could be applied to biomedicine to address bias and improve fairness.The bias of AIs in biomedicine can originate from multiple sources. Existing debiasing methods that focus on algorithms can be categorized into distributional or algorithmic.

This survey article assesses and compares existing critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions into machine learning (ML) that draw from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies. It bridges epistemic divides in order to offer an interdisciplinary understanding of the possibilities and limits of hegemonic computational approaches to ML fairness for producing just outcomes for society's most marginalized. The article is organized according to nine major themes of critique wherein these different fields intersect: 1) how "fairness" in AI fairness research gets defined; 2) how problems for AI systems to address get formulated; 3) the impacts of abstraction on how AI tools function and its propensity to lead to technological solutionism; 4) how racial classification operates within AI fairness research; 5) the use of AI fairness measures to avoid regulation and engage in ethics washing; 6) an absence of participatory design and democratic deliberation in AI fairness considerations; 7) data collection practices that entrench "bias," are non-consensual, and lack transparency; 8) the predatory inclusion of marginalized groups into AI systems; and 9) a lack of engagement with AI's long-term social and ethical outcomes. Drawing from these critiques, the article concludes by imagining future ML fairness research directions that actively disrupt entrenched power dynamics and structural injustices in society.

On the Algorithmic Bias of Aligning Large Language Models with RLHF: Preference Collapse and Matching Regularization

Jiancong Xiao, Ziniu Li, Xingyu Xie +4

Accurately aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is crucial for informing fair, economically sound, and statistically efficient decision-making processes. However, we argue that the predominant approach for aligning LLMs with human preferences through a reward model -- reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) -- suffers from an inherent algorithmic bias due to its Kullback--Leibler-based regularization in optimization. In extreme cases, this bias could lead to a phenomenon we term preference collapse, where minority preferences are virtually disregarded. To mitigate this algorithmic bias, we introduce preference matching (PM) RLHF, a novel approach that provably aligns LLMs with the preference distribution of the reward model under the Bradley--Terry--Luce/Plackett--Luce model. Central to our approach is a PM regularizer that takes the form of the negative logarithm of the LLM's policy probability distribution over responses, which helps the LLM balance response diversification and reward maximization. Notably, we obtain this regularizer by solving an ordinary differential equation that is necessary for the PM property. For practical implementation, we introduce a conditional variant of PM RLHF that is tailored to natural language generation. Finally, we empirically validate the effectiveness of conditional PM RLHF through experiments on the OPT and Llama-family models, demonstrating a 29% to 41% improvement in alignment with human preferences, as measured by a certain metric, compared to standard RLHF.

The ethical concept of fairness has recently been applied in machine learning (ML) settings to describe a wide range of constraints and objectives. When considering the relevance of ethical concepts to subset selection problems, the concepts of diversity and inclusion are additionally applicable in order to create outputs that account for social power and access differentials. We introduce metrics based on these concepts, which can be applied together, separately, and in tandem with additional fairness constraints. Results from human subject experiments lend support to the proposed criteria. Social choice methods can additionally be leveraged to aggregate and choose preferable sets, and we detail how these may be applied.