Praveen Paritosh

Mark Mazumder, Colby Banbury, Xiaozhe Yao et al.

Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks. In response, we present DataPerf, a community-led benchmark suite for evaluating ML datasets and data-centric algorithms. We aim to foster innovation in data-centric AI through competition, comparability, and reproducibility. We enable the ML community to iterate on datasets, instead of just architectures, and we provide an open, online platform with multiple rounds of challenges to support this iterative development. The first iteration of DataPerf contains five benchmarks covering a wide spectrum of data-centric techniques, tasks, and modalities in vision, speech, acquisition, debugging, and diffusion prompting, and we support hosting new contributed benchmarks from the community. The benchmarks, online evaluation platform, and baseline implementations are open source, and the MLCommons Association will maintain DataPerf to ensure long-term benefits to academia and industry.

Luis Oala, Manil Maskey, Lilith Bat-Leah et al. · mit

Drawing from discussions at the inaugural DMLR workshop at ICML 2023 and meetings prior, in this report we outline the relevance of community engagement and infrastructure development for the creation of next-generation public datasets that will advance machine learning science. We chart a path forward as a collective effort to sustain the creation and maintenance of these datasets and methods towards positive scientific, societal and business impact.

Senjuti Dutta, Sid Mittal, Sherol Chen et al.

The prevalence and impact of toxic discussions online have made content moderation crucial.Automated systems can play a vital role in identifying toxicity, and reducing the reliance on human moderation.Nevertheless, identifying toxic comments for diverse communities continues to present challenges that are addressed in this paper.The two-part goal of this study is to(1)identify intuitive variances from annotator disagreement using quantitative analysis and (2)model the subjectivity of these viewpoints.To achieve our goal, we published a new dataset\footnote{\url{https://github.com/XXX}} with expert annotators' annotations and used two other public datasets to identify the subjectivity of toxicity.Then leveraging the Large Language Model(LLM),we evaluate the model's ability to mimic diverse viewpoints on toxicity by varying size of the training data and utilizing same set of annotators as the test set used during model training and a separate set of annotators as the test set.We conclude that subjectivity is evident across all annotator groups, demonstrating the shortcomings of majority-rule voting. Moving forward, subjective annotations should serve as ground truth labels for training models for domains like toxicity in diverse communities.

Ka Wong, Praveen Paritosh

Since the inception of crowdsourcing, aggregation has been a common strategy for dealing with unreliable data. Aggregate ratings are more reliable than individual ones. However, many natural language processing (NLP) applications that rely on aggregate ratings only report the reliability of individual ratings, which is the incorrect unit of analysis. In these instances, the data reliability is under-reported, and a proposed k-rater reliability (kRR) should be used as the correct data reliability for aggregated datasets. It is a multi-rater generalization of inter-rater reliability (IRR). We conducted two replications of the WordSim-353 benchmark, and present empirical, analytical, and bootstrap-based methods for computing kRR on WordSim-353. These methods produce very similar results. We hope this discussion will nudge researchers to report kRR in addition to IRR.

Ka Wong, Praveen Paritosh, Lora Aroyo

We present a new approach to interpreting IRR that is empirical and contextualized. It is based upon benchmarking IRR against baseline measures in a replication, one of which is a novel cross-replication reliability (xRR) measure based on Cohen's kappa. We call this approach the xRR framework. We opensource a replication dataset of 4 million human judgements of facial expressions and analyze it with the proposed framework. We argue this framework can be used to measure the quality of crowdsourced datasets.

Vinay K Chaudhri, Chaitan Baru, Brandon Bennett et al.

The long-standing goal of creating a comprehensive, multi-purpose knowledge resource, reminiscent of the 1984 Cyc project, still persists in AI. Despite the success of knowledge resources like WordNet, ConceptNet, Wolfram|Alpha and other commercial knowledge graphs, verifiable, general-purpose widely available sources of knowledge remain a critical deficiency in AI infrastructure. Large language models struggle due to knowledge gaps; robotic planning lacks necessary world knowledge; and the detection of factually false information relies heavily on human expertise. What kind of knowledge resource is most needed in AI today? How can modern technology shape its development and evaluation? A recent AAAI workshop gathered over 50 researchers to explore these questions. This paper synthesizes our findings and outlines a community-driven vision for a new knowledge infrastructure. In addition to leveraging contemporary advances in knowledge representation and reasoning, one promising idea is to build an open engineering framework to exploit knowledge modules effectively within the context of practical applications. Such a framework should include sets of conventions and social structures that are adopted by contributors.

Lora Aroyo, Matthew Lease, Praveen Paritosh et al.

The efficacy of machine learning (ML) models depends on both algorithms and data. Training data defines what we want our models to learn, and testing data provides the means by which their empirical progress is measured. Benchmark datasets define the entire world within which models exist and operate, yet research continues to focus on critiquing and improving the algorithmic aspect of the models rather than critiquing and improving the data with which our models operate. If "data is the new oil," we are still missing work on the refineries by which the data itself could be optimized for more effective use.

Chris Welty, Praveen Paritosh, Lora Aroyo

In this paper we present the first steps towards hardening the science of measuring AI systems, by adopting metrology, the science of measurement and its application, and applying it to human (crowd) powered evaluations. We begin with the intuitive observation that evaluating the performance of an AI system is a form of measurement. In all other science and engineering disciplines, the devices used to measure are called instruments, and all measurements are recorded with respect to the characteristics of the instruments used. One does not report mass, speed, or length, for example, of a studied object without disclosing the precision (measurement variance) and resolution (smallest detectable change) of the instrument used. It is extremely common in the AI literature to compare the performance of two systems by using a crowd-sourced dataset as an instrument, but failing to report if the performance difference lies within the capability of that instrument to measure. To illustrate the adoption of metrology to benchmark datasets we use the word similarity benchmark WS353 and several previously published experiments that use it for evaluation.