Leif Hancox-Li

Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Leif Hancox-Li

In recent years, ML researchers have wrestled with defining and improving machine learning (ML) benchmarks and datasets. In parallel, some have trained a critical lens on the ethics of dataset creation and ML research. In this position paper, we highlight the entanglement of ethics with seemingly ``technical'' or ``scientific'' decisions about the design of ML benchmarks. Our starting point is the existence of multiple overlooked structural similarities between human intelligence benchmarks and ML benchmarks. Both types of benchmarks set standards for describing, evaluating, and comparing performance on tasks relevant to intelligence -- standards that many scholars of human intelligence have long recognized as value-laden. We use perspectives from feminist philosophy of science on IQ benchmarks and thick concepts in social science to argue that values need to be considered and documented when creating ML benchmarks. It is neither possible nor desirable to avoid this choice by creating value-neutral benchmarks. Finally, we outline practical recommendations for ML benchmark research ethics and ethics review.

Brian Barr, Noah Fatsi, Leif Hancox-Li et al.

The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to explain how black-box machine learning models work. Much of the work centers around the holy grail of providing post-hoc feature attributions to any model architecture. While the pace of innovation around novel methods has slowed down, the question remains of how to choose a method, and how to make it fit for purpose. Recently, efforts around benchmarking XAI methods have suggested metrics for that purpose -- but there are many choices. That bounty of choice still leaves an end user unclear on how to proceed. This paper focuses on comparing metrics with the aim of measuring faithfulness of local explanations on tabular classification problems -- and shows that the current metrics don't agree; leaving users unsure how to choose the most faithful explanations.

Nic Fishman, Leif Hancox-Li

"Attention is all you need" has become a fundamental precept in machine learning research. Originally designed for machine translation, transformers and the attention mechanisms that underpin them now find success across many problem domains. With the apparent domain-agnostic success of transformers, many researchers are excited that similar model architectures can be successfully deployed across diverse applications in vision, language and beyond. We consider the benefits and risks of these waves of unification on both epistemic and ethical fronts. On the epistemic side, we argue that many of the arguments in favor of unification in the natural sciences fail to transfer over to the machine learning case, or transfer over only under assumptions that might not hold. Unification also introduces epistemic risks related to portability, path dependency, methodological diversity, and increased black-boxing. On the ethical side, we discuss risks emerging from epistemic concerns, further marginalizing underrepresented perspectives, the centralization of power, and having fewer models across more domains of application