Christina M. Greer

Ben Hutchinson, Negar Rostamzadeh, Christina Greer et al.

Forming a reliable judgement of a machine learning (ML) model's appropriateness for an application ecosystem is critical for its responsible use, and requires considering a broad range of factors including harms, benefits, and responsibilities. In practice, however, evaluations of ML models frequently focus on only a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. Through an empirical study of papers from recent high-profile conferences in the Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing communities, we demonstrate a general focus on a handful of evaluation methods. By considering the metrics and test data distributions used in these methods, we draw attention to which properties of models are centered in the field, revealing the properties that are frequently neglected or sidelined during evaluation. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts; these include commitments to consequentialism, abstractability from context, the quantifiability of impacts, the limited role of model inputs in evaluation, and the equivalence of different failure modes. Shedding light on these assumptions enables us to question their appropriateness for ML system contexts, pointing the way towards more contextualized evaluation methodologies for robustly examining the trustworthiness of ML models

Alex Bäuerle, Aybuke Gul Turker, Ken Burke et al.

While the need for well-trained, fair ML systems is increasing ever more, measuring fairness for modern models and datasets is becoming increasingly difficult as they grow at an unprecedented pace. One key challenge in scaling common fairness metrics to such models and datasets is the requirement of exhaustive ground truth labeling, which cannot always be done. Indeed, this often rules out the application of traditional analysis metrics and systems. At the same time, ML-fairness assessments cannot be made algorithmically, as fairness is a highly subjective matter. Thus, domain experts need to be able to extract and reason about bias throughout models and datasets to make informed decisions. While visual analysis tools are of great help when investigating potential bias in DL models, none of the existing approaches have been designed for the specific tasks and challenges that arise in large label spaces. Addressing the lack of visualization work in this area, we propose guidelines for designing visualizations for such large label spaces, considering both technical and ethical issues. Our proposed visualization approach can be integrated into classical model and data pipelines, and we provide an implementation of our techniques open-sourced as a TensorBoard plug-in. With our approach, different models and datasets for large label spaces can be systematically and visually analyzed and compared to make informed fairness assessments tackling problematic bias.