Eric Q. Wu

Weixin Liang, Mert Yuksekgonul, Yining Mao et al. · stanford

The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse. The published version of this study can be accessed at: www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(23)00130-7

Kevin Wu, Eric Wu, Ally Cassasola et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. Recent top-performing commercial LLMs, in particular, are also capable of citing sources to support their responses. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? To answer this, we propose three contributions. First, as expert medical annotations are an expensive and time-consuming bottleneck for scalable evaluation, we demonstrate that GPT-4 is highly accurate in validating source relevance, agreeing 88% of the time with a panel of medical doctors. Second, we develop an end-to-end, automated pipeline called \textit{SourceCheckup} and use it to evaluate five top-performing LLMs on a dataset of 1200 generated questions, totaling over 40K pairs of statements and sources. Interestingly, we find that between ~50% to 90% of LLM responses are not fully supported by the sources they provide. We also evaluate GPT-4 with retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and find that, even still, around 30\% of individual statements are unsupported, while nearly half of its responses are not fully supported. Third, we open-source our curated dataset of medical questions and expert annotations for future evaluations. Given the rapid pace of LLM development and the potential harms of incorrect or outdated medical information, it is crucial to also understand and quantify their capability to produce relevant, trustworthy medical references.

Weixin Liang, Nazneen Rajani, Xinyu Yang et al. · salesforce, stanford

The rapid proliferation of AI models has underscored the importance of thorough documentation, as it enables users to understand, trust, and effectively utilize these models in various applications. Although developers are encouraged to produce model cards, it's not clear how much information or what information these cards contain. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of 32,111 AI model documentations on Hugging Face, a leading platform for distributing and deploying AI models. Our investigation sheds light on the prevailing model card documentation practices. Most of the AI models with substantial downloads provide model cards, though the cards have uneven informativeness. We find that sections addressing environmental impact, limitations, and evaluation exhibit the lowest filled-out rates, while the training section is the most consistently filled-out. We analyze the content of each section to characterize practitioners' priorities. Interestingly, there are substantial discussions of data, sometimes with equal or even greater emphasis than the model itself. To evaluate the impact of model cards, we conducted an intervention study by adding detailed model cards to 42 popular models which had no or sparse model cards previously. We find that adding model cards is moderately correlated with an increase weekly download rates. Our study opens up a new perspective for analyzing community norms and practices for model documentation through large-scale data science and linguistics analysis.

Eric Wu, Kevin Wu, James Zou

Medical AI algorithms can often experience degraded performance when evaluated on previously unseen sites. Addressing cross-site performance disparities is key to ensuring that AI is equitable and effective when deployed on diverse patient populations. Multi-site evaluations are key to diagnosing such disparities as they can test algorithms across a broader range of potential biases such as patient demographics, equipment types, and technical parameters. However, such tests do not explain why the model performs worse. Our framework provides a method for quantifying the marginal and cumulative effect of each type of bias on the overall performance difference when a model is evaluated on external data. We demonstrate its usefulness in a case study of a deep learning model trained to detect the presence of pneumothorax, where our framework can help explain up to 60% of the discrepancy in performance across different sites with known biases like disease comorbidities and imaging parameters.

William Lotter, Abdul Rahman Diab, Bryan Haslam et al.

Breast cancer remains a global challenge, causing over 1 million deaths globally in 2018. To achieve earlier breast cancer detection, screening x-ray mammography is recommended by health organizations worldwide and has been estimated to decrease breast cancer mortality by 20-40%. Nevertheless, significant false positive and false negative rates, as well as high interpretation costs, leave opportunities for improving quality and access. To address these limitations, there has been much recent interest in applying deep learning to mammography; however, obtaining large amounts of annotated data poses a challenge for training deep learning models for this purpose, as does ensuring generalization beyond the populations represented in the training dataset. Here, we present an annotation-efficient deep learning approach that 1) achieves state-of-the-art performance in mammogram classification, 2) successfully extends to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; "3D mammography"), 3) detects cancers in clinically-negative prior mammograms of cancer patients, 4) generalizes well to a population with low screening rates, and 5) outperforms five-out-of-five full-time breast imaging specialists by improving absolute sensitivity by an average of 14%. Our results demonstrate promise towards software that can improve the accuracy of and access to screening mammography worldwide.