Showing 1–13 of 13 results for author: Lum, K

Imagen 3

Authors: Imagen-Team-Google, :, Jason Baldridge, Jakob Bauer, Mukul Bhutani, Nicole Brichtova, Andrew Bunner, Kelvin Chan, Yichang Chen, Sander Dieleman, Yuqing Du, Zach Eaton-Rosen, Hongliang Fei, Nando de Freitas, Yilin Gao, Evgeny Gladchenko, Sergio Gómez Colmenarejo, Mandy Guo, Alex Haig, Will Hawkins, Hexiang Hu, Huilian Huang, Tobenna Peter Igwe, Christos Kaplanis, Siavash Khodadadeh , et al. (227 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: We introduce Imagen 3, a latent diffusion model that generates high quality images from text prompts. We describe our quality and responsibility evaluations. Imagen 3 is preferred over other state-of-the-art (SOTA) models at the time of evaluation. In addition, we discuss issues around safety and representation, as well as methods we used to minimize the potential harm of our models. We introduce Imagen 3, a latent diffusion model that generates high quality images from text prompts. We describe our quality and responsibility evaluations. Imagen 3 is preferred over other state-of-the-art (SOTA) models at the time of evaluation. In addition, we discuss issues around safety and representation, as well as methods we used to minimize the potential harm of our models. △ Less

Submitted 13 August, 2024; originally announced August 2024.

STAR: SocioTechnical Approach to Red Teaming Language Models

Authors: Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Bernat Guillen Pegueroles, Nahema Marchal, Ravin Kumar, Kristian Lum, Canfer Akbulut, Mark Diaz, Stevie Bergman, Mikel Rodriguez, Verena Rieser, William Isaac

Abstract: This research introduces STAR, a sociotechnical framework that improves on current best practices for red teaming safety of large language models. STAR makes two key contributions: it enhances steerability by generating parameterised instructions for human red teamers, leading to improved coverage of the risk surface. Parameterised instructions also provide more detailed insights into model failur… ▽ More This research introduces STAR, a sociotechnical framework that improves on current best practices for red teaming safety of large language models. STAR makes two key contributions: it enhances steerability by generating parameterised instructions for human red teamers, leading to improved coverage of the risk surface. Parameterised instructions also provide more detailed insights into model failures at no increased cost. Second, STAR improves signal quality by matching demographics to assess harms for specific groups, resulting in more sensitive annotations. STAR further employs a novel step of arbitration to leverage diverse viewpoints and improve label reliability, treating disagreement not as noise but as a valuable contribution to signal quality. △ Less

Submitted 6 August, 2024; v1 submitted 17 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: 8 pages, 5 figures, 5 pages appendix. * denotes equal contribution

The Impossibility of Fair LLMs

Authors: Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D'Amour, Chenhao Tan

Abstract: The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness,… ▽ More The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness, such as group fairness and fair representations, and find that their application to LLMs faces inherent limitations. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to LLMs or presents a notion of fairness that is intractable for LLMs, primarily due to the multitudes of populations affected, sensitive attributes, and use cases. To address these challenges, we develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases: the criticality of context, the responsibility of LLM developers, and the need for stakeholder participation in an iterative process of design and evaluation. Moreover, it may eventually be possible and even necessary to use the general-purpose capabilities of AI systems to address fairness challenges as a form of scalable AI-assisted alignment. △ Less

Submitted 28 May, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: Presented at the 1st Human-Centered Evaluation and Auditing of Language Models (HEAL) workshop at CHI 2024

Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation

Authors: Kristian Lum, Jacy Reese Anthis, Chirag Nagpal, Alexander D'Amour

Abstract: Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible… ▽ More Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible {Effects (i.e. RUTEd evaluations). We explore this correlation in the context of gender-occupation bias--a popular genre of bias evaluation. We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation. We conduct each evaluation for seven instruction-tuned LLMs. For the RUTEd evaluations, we conduct repeated trials of three text generation tasks: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises. We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations. Specifically, selecting the least biased model based on the de-contextualized results coincides with selecting the model with the best performance on RUTEd evaluations only as often as random chance. We conclude that evaluations that are not based in realistic use are likely insufficient to mitigate and assess bias and real-world harms. △ Less

Submitted 19 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

County-level Algorithmic Audit of Racial Bias in Twitter's Home Timeline

Authors: Luca Belli, Kyra Yee, Uthaipon Tantipongpipat, Aaron Gonzales, Kristian Lum, Moritz Hardt

Abstract: We report on the outcome of an audit of Twitter's Home Timeline ranking system. The goal of the audit was to determine if authors from some racial groups experience systematically higher impression counts for their Tweets than others. A central obstacle for any such audit is that Twitter does not ordinarily collect or associate racial information with its users, thus prohibiting an analysis at the… ▽ More We report on the outcome of an audit of Twitter's Home Timeline ranking system. The goal of the audit was to determine if authors from some racial groups experience systematically higher impression counts for their Tweets than others. A central obstacle for any such audit is that Twitter does not ordinarily collect or associate racial information with its users, thus prohibiting an analysis at the level of individual authors. Working around this obstacle, we take US counties as our unit of analysis. We associate each user in the United States on the Twitter platform to a county based on available location data. The US Census Bureau provides information about the racial decomposition of the population in each county. The question we investigate then is if the racial decomposition of a county is associated with the visibility of Tweets originating from within the county. Focusing on two racial groups, the Black or African American population and the White population as defined by the US Census Bureau, we evaluate two statistical measures of bias. Our investigation represents the first large-scale algorithmic audit into racial bias on the Twitter platform. Additionally, it illustrates the challenges of measuring racial bias in online platforms without having such information on the users. △ Less

Submitted 10 February, 2023; v1 submitted 15 November, 2022; originally announced November 2022.

Random Isn't Always Fair: Candidate Set Imbalance and Exposure Inequality in Recommender Systems

Authors: Amanda Bower, Kristian Lum, Tomo Lazovich, Kyra Yee, Luca Belli

Abstract: Traditionally, recommender systems operate by returning a user a set of items, ranked in order of estimated relevance to that user. In recent years, methods relying on stochastic ordering have been developed to create "fairer" rankings that reduce inequality in who or what is shown to users. Complete randomization -- ordering candidate items randomly, independent of estimated relevance -- is large… ▽ More Traditionally, recommender systems operate by returning a user a set of items, ranked in order of estimated relevance to that user. In recent years, methods relying on stochastic ordering have been developed to create "fairer" rankings that reduce inequality in who or what is shown to users. Complete randomization -- ordering candidate items randomly, independent of estimated relevance -- is largely considered a baseline procedure that results in the most equal distribution of exposure. In industry settings, recommender systems often operate via a two-step process in which candidate items are first produced using computationally inexpensive methods and then a full ranking model is applied only to those candidates. In this paper, we consider the effects of inequality at the first step and show that, paradoxically, complete randomization at the second step can result in a higher degree of inequality relative to deterministic ordering of items by estimated relevance scores. In light of this observation, we then propose a simple post-processing algorithm in pursuit of reducing exposure inequality that works both when candidate sets have a high level of imbalance and when they do not. The efficacy of our method is illustrated on both simulated data and a common benchmark data set used in studying fairness in recommender systems. △ Less

Submitted 11 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: 12 pages

Measuring and mitigating voting access disparities: a study of race and polling locations in Florida and North Carolina

Authors: Mohsen Abbasi, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Sorelle A. Friedler, Kristian Lum, Calvin Barrett

Abstract: Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the United States. Barriers to voting have taken many forms over the decades. A history of violent explicit discouragement has shifted to more subtle access limitations that can include long lines and wait times, long travel times to reach a polling station, and other logistical barri… ▽ More Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the United States. Barriers to voting have taken many forms over the decades. A history of violent explicit discouragement has shifted to more subtle access limitations that can include long lines and wait times, long travel times to reach a polling station, and other logistical barriers to voting. Our focus in this work is on quantifying disparities in voting access pertaining to the overall time-to-vote, and how they could be remedied via a better choice of polling location or provisioning more sites where voters can cast ballots. However, appropriately calibrating access disparities is difficult because of the need to account for factors such as population density and different community expectations for reasonable travel times. In this paper, we quantify access to polling locations, developing a methodology for the calibrated measurement of racial disparities in polling location "load" and distance to polling locations. We apply this methodology to a study of real-world data from Florida and North Carolina to identify disparities in voting access from the 2020 election. We also introduce algorithms, with modifications to handle scale, that can reduce these disparities by suggesting new polling locations from a given list of identified public locations (including schools and libraries). Applying these algorithms on the 2020 election location data also helps to expose and explore tradeoffs between the cost of allocating more polling locations and the potential impact on access disparities. The developed voting access measurement methodology and algorithmic remediation technique is a first step in better polling location assignment. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Flipping the Script on Criminal Justice Risk Assessment: An actuarial model for assessing the risk the federal sentencing system poses to defendants

Authors: Mikaela Meyer, Aaron Horowitz, Erica Marshall, Kristian Lum

Abstract: In the criminal justice system, algorithmic risk assessment instruments are used to predict the risk a defendant poses to society; examples include the risk of recidivating or the risk of failing to appear at future court dates. However, defendants are also at risk of harm from the criminal justice system. To date, there exists no risk assessment instrument that considers the risk the system poses… ▽ More In the criminal justice system, algorithmic risk assessment instruments are used to predict the risk a defendant poses to society; examples include the risk of recidivating or the risk of failing to appear at future court dates. However, defendants are also at risk of harm from the criminal justice system. To date, there exists no risk assessment instrument that considers the risk the system poses to the individual. We develop a risk assessment instrument that "flips the script." Using data about U.S. federal sentencing decisions, we build a risk assessment instrument that predicts the likelihood an individual will receive an especially lengthy sentence given factors that should be legally irrelevant to the sentencing decision. To do this, we develop a two-stage modeling approach. Our first-stage model is used to determine which sentences were "especially lengthy." We then use a second-stage model to predict the defendant's risk of receiving a sentence that is flagged as especially lengthy given factors that should be legally irrelevant. The factors that should be legally irrelevant include, for example, race, court location, and other socio-demographic information about the defendant. Our instrument achieves comparable predictive accuracy to risk assessment instruments used in pretrial and parole contexts. We discuss the limitations of our modeling approach and use the opportunity to highlight how traditional risk assessment instruments in various criminal justice settings also suffer from many of the same limitations and embedded value systems of their creators. △ Less

Submitted 13 July, 2022; v1 submitted 26 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT 2022)

De-biasing "bias" measurement

Authors: Kristian Lum, Yunfeng Zhang, Amanda Bower

Abstract: When a model's performance differs across socially or culturally relevant groups--like race, gender, or the intersections of many such groups--it is often called "biased." While much of the work in algorithmic fairness over the last several years has focused on developing various definitions of model fairness (the absence of group-wise model performance disparities) and eliminating such "bias," mu… ▽ More When a model's performance differs across socially or culturally relevant groups--like race, gender, or the intersections of many such groups--it is often called "biased." While much of the work in algorithmic fairness over the last several years has focused on developing various definitions of model fairness (the absence of group-wise model performance disparities) and eliminating such "bias," much less work has gone into rigorously measuring it. In practice, it important to have high quality, human digestible measures of model performance disparities and associated uncertainty quantification about them that can serve as inputs into multi-faceted decision-making processes. In this paper, we show both mathematically and through simulation that many of the metrics used to measure group-wise model performance disparities are themselves statistically biased estimators of the underlying quantities they purport to represent. We argue that this can cause misleading conclusions about the relative group-wise model performance disparities along different dimensions, especially in cases where some sensitive variables consist of categories with few members. We propose the "double-corrected" variance estimator, which provides unbiased estimates and uncertainty quantification of the variance of model performance across groups. It is conceptually simple and easily implementable without statistical software package or numerical optimization. We demonstrate the utility of this approach through simulation and show on a real dataset that while statistically biased estimators of group-wise model performance disparities indicate statistically significant differences, when accounting for statistical bias in the estimator, the estimated between-group disparities are no longer statistically significant. △ Less

Submitted 29 June, 2022; v1 submitted 11 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Journal ref: 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '22), June 21--24, 2022, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Metrics

Authors: Tomo Lazovich, Luca Belli, Aaron Gonzales, Amanda Bower, Uthaipon Tantipongpipat, Kristian Lum, Ferenc Huszar, Rumman Chowdhury

Abstract: The harmful impacts of algorithmic decision systems have recently come into focus, with many examples of systems such as machine learning (ML) models amplifying existing societal biases. Most metrics attempting to quantify disparities resulting from ML algorithms focus on differences between groups, dividing users based on demographic identities and comparing model performance or overall outcomes… ▽ More The harmful impacts of algorithmic decision systems have recently come into focus, with many examples of systems such as machine learning (ML) models amplifying existing societal biases. Most metrics attempting to quantify disparities resulting from ML algorithms focus on differences between groups, dividing users based on demographic identities and comparing model performance or overall outcomes between these groups. However, in industry settings, such information is often not available, and inferring these characteristics carries its own risks and biases. Moreover, typical metrics that focus on a single classifier's output ignore the complex network of systems that produce outcomes in real-world settings. In this paper, we evaluate a set of metrics originating from economics, distributional inequality metrics, and their ability to measure disparities in content exposure in a production recommendation system, the Twitter algorithmic timeline. We define desirable criteria for metrics to be used in an operational setting, specifically by ML practitioners. We characterize different types of engagement with content on Twitter using these metrics, and use these results to evaluate the metrics with respect to the desired criteria. We show that we can use these metrics to identify content suggestion algorithms that contribute more strongly to skewed outcomes between users. Overall, we conclude that these metrics can be useful tools for understanding disparate outcomes in online social networks. △ Less

Submitted 3 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Comments: 11 pages, 7 figures

The 2021 RecSys Challenge Dataset: Fairness is not optional

Authors: Luca Belli, Alykhan Tejani, Frank Portman, Alexandre Lung-Yut-Fong, Ben Chamberlain, Yuanpu Xie, Kristian Lum, Jonathan Hunt, Michael Bronstein, Vito Walter Anelli, Saikishore Kalloori, Bruce Ferwerda, Wenzhe Shi

Abstract: After the success the RecSys 2020 Challenge, we are describing a novel and bigger dataset that was released in conjunction with the ACM RecSys Challenge 2021. This year's dataset is not only bigger (~ 1B data points, a 5 fold increase), but for the first time it take into consideration fairness aspects of the challenge. Unlike many static datsets, a lot of effort went into making sure that the dat… ▽ More After the success the RecSys 2020 Challenge, we are describing a novel and bigger dataset that was released in conjunction with the ACM RecSys Challenge 2021. This year's dataset is not only bigger (~ 1B data points, a 5 fold increase), but for the first time it take into consideration fairness aspects of the challenge. Unlike many static datsets, a lot of effort went into making sure that the dataset was synced with the Twitter platform: if a user deleted their content, the same content would be promptly removed from the dataset too. In this paper, we introduce the dataset and challenge, highlighting some of the issues that arise when creating recommender systems at Twitter scale. △ Less

Submitted 21 September, 2021; v1 submitted 16 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarks

Authors: Michelle Bao, Angela Zhou, Samantha Zottola, Brian Brubach, Sarah Desmarais, Aaron Horowitz, Kristian Lum, Suresh Venkatasubramanian

Abstract: Risk assessment instrument (RAI) datasets, particularly ProPublica's COMPAS dataset, are commonly used in algorithmic fairness papers due to benchmarking practices of comparing algorithms on datasets used in prior work. In many cases, this data is used as a benchmark to demonstrate good performance without accounting for the complexities of criminal justice (CJ) processes. However, we show that pr… ▽ More Risk assessment instrument (RAI) datasets, particularly ProPublica's COMPAS dataset, are commonly used in algorithmic fairness papers due to benchmarking practices of comparing algorithms on datasets used in prior work. In many cases, this data is used as a benchmark to demonstrate good performance without accounting for the complexities of criminal justice (CJ) processes. However, we show that pretrial RAI datasets can contain numerous measurement biases and errors, and due to disparities in discretion and deployment, algorithmic fairness applied to RAI datasets is limited in making claims about real-world outcomes. These reasons make the datasets a poor fit for benchmarking under assumptions of ground truth and real-world impact. Furthermore, conventional practices of simply replicating previous data experiments may implicitly inherit or edify normative positions without explicitly interrogating value-laden assumptions. Without context of how interdisciplinary fields have engaged in CJ research and context of how RAIs operate upstream and downstream, algorithmic fairness practices are misaligned for meaningful contribution in the context of CJ, and would benefit from transparent engagement with normative considerations and values related to fairness, justice, and equality. These factors prompt questions about whether benchmarks for intrinsically socio-technical systems like the CJ system can exist in a beneficial and ethical way. △ Less

Submitted 28 April, 2022; v1 submitted 10 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Comments: NeurIPS 2021 Datasets and Benchmarks

A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms

Authors: Kristian Lum, James Johndrow

Abstract: Predictive modeling is increasingly being employed to assist human decision-makers. One purported advantage of replacing human judgment with computer models in high stakes settings-- such as sentencing, hiring, policing, college admissions, and parole decisions-- is the perceived "neutrality" of computers. It is argued that because computer models do not hold personal prejudice, the predictions th… ▽ More Predictive modeling is increasingly being employed to assist human decision-makers. One purported advantage of replacing human judgment with computer models in high stakes settings-- such as sentencing, hiring, policing, college admissions, and parole decisions-- is the perceived "neutrality" of computers. It is argued that because computer models do not hold personal prejudice, the predictions they produce will be equally free from prejudice. There is growing recognition that employing algorithms does not remove the potential for bias, and can even amplify it, since training data were inevitably generated by a process that is itself biased. In this paper, we provide a probabilistic definition of algorithmic bias. We propose a method to remove bias from predictive models by removing all information regarding protected variables from the permitted training data. Unlike previous work in this area, our framework is general enough to accommodate arbitrary data types, e.g. binary, continuous, etc. Motivated by models currently in use in the criminal justice system that inform decisions on pre-trial release and paroling, we apply our proposed method to a dataset on the criminal histories of individuals at the time of sentencing to produce "race-neutral" predictions of re-arrest. In the process, we demonstrate that the most common approach to creating "race-neutral" models-- omitting race as a covariate-- still results in racially disparate predictions. We then demonstrate that the application of our proposed method to these data removes racial disparities from predictions with minimal impact on predictive accuracy. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.