arXiv subjects

Carolyn Ashurst

Publications and source records attributed to Carolyn Ashurst.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

Identifying and Mitigating Privacy Risks Stemming from Language Models: A Survey

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown greatly enhanced performance in recent years, attributed to increased size and extensive training data. This advancement has led to widespread interest and adoption across industries and the public. However, training data memorization in Machine Learning models scales with model size, particularly concerning for LLMs. Memorized text sequences have the potential to be directly leaked from LLMs, posing a serious threat to data privacy. Various techniques have been developed to attack LLMs and extract their training data. As these models continue to grow, this issue becomes increasingly critical. To help researchers and policymakers understand the state of knowledge around privacy attacks and mitigations, including where more work is needed, we present the first SoK on data privacy for LLMs. We (i) identify a taxonomy of salient dimensions where attacks differ on LLMs, (ii) systematize existing attacks, using our taxonomy of dimensions to highlight key trends, (iii) survey existing mitigation strategies, highlighting their strengths and limitations, and (iv) identify key gaps, demonstrating open problems and areas for concern.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Reimagining AI in Social Work: Practitioner Perspectives on Incorporating Technology in their Practice

There has been a surge in the number and type of AI tools being tested and deployed within both national and local government in the UK, including within the social care sector. Given the many ongoing and planned future developments, the time is ripe to review and reflect on the state of AI in social care. We do so by conducting semi-structured interviews with UK-based social work professionals about their experiences and opinions of past and current AI systems. Our aim is to understand what systems would practitioners like to see developed and how. We find that all our interviewees had overwhelmingly negative past experiences of technology in social care, unanimous aversion to algorithmic decision systems in particular, but also strong interest in AI applications that could allow them to spend less time on administrative tasks. In response to our findings, we offer a series of concrete recommendations, which include commitment to participatory design, as well as the necessity of regaining practitioner trust.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

The Progression of Disparities within the Criminal Justice System: Differential Enforcement and Risk Assessment Instruments

Algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) increasingly inform decision-making in criminal justice. RAIs largely rely on arrest records as a proxy for underlying crime. Problematically, the extent to which arrests reflect overall offending can vary with the person's characteristics. We examine how the disconnect between crime and arrest rates impacts RAIs and their evaluation. Our main contribution is a method for quantifying this bias via estimation of the amount of unobserved offenses associated with particular demographics. These unobserved offenses are then used to augment real-world arrest records to create part real, part synthetic crime records. Using this data, we estimate that four currently deployed RAIs assign 0.5--2.8 percentage points higher risk scores to Black individuals than to White individuals with a similar \emph{arrest} record, but the gap grows to 4.5--11.0 percentage points when we match on the semi-synthetic \emph{crime} record. We conclude by discussing the potential risks around the use of RAIs, highlighting how they may exacerbate existing inequalities if the underlying disparities of the criminal justice system are not taken into account. In light of our findings, we provide recommendations to improve the development and evaluation of such tools.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Racial Disparities in the Enforcement of Marijuana Violations in the US

Racial disparities in US drug arrest rates have been observed for decades, but their causes and policy implications are still contested. Some have argued that the disparities largely reflect differences in drug use between racial groups, while others have hypothesized that discriminatory enforcement policies and police practices play a significant role. In this work, we analyze racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana violations in the US. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) programs, we investigate whether marijuana usage and purchasing behaviors can explain the racial composition of offenders in police records. We examine potential driving mechanisms behind these disparities and the extent to which county-level socioeconomic factors are associated with corresponding disparities. Our results indicate that the significant racial disparities in reported incidents and arrests cannot be explained by differences in marijuana days-of-use alone. Variations in the location where marijuana is purchased and in the frequency of these purchases partially explain the observed disparities. We observe an increase in racial disparities across most counties over the last decade, with the greatest increases in states that legalized the use of marijuana within this timeframe. Income, high school graduation rate, and rate of employment positively correlate with larger racial disparities, while the rate of incarceration is negatively correlated. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the observed racial disparities in the context of algorithmic fairness.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2022

Why Fair Labels Can Yield Unfair Predictions: Graphical Conditions for Introduced Unfairness

In addition to reproducing discriminatory relationships in the training data, machine learning systems can also introduce or amplify discriminatory effects. We refer to this as introduced unfairness, and investigate the conditions under which it may arise. To this end, we propose introduced total variation as a measure of introduced unfairness, and establish graphical conditions under which it may be incentivised to occur. These criteria imply that adding the sensitive attribute as a feature removes the incentive for introduced variation under well-behaved loss functions. Additionally, taking a causal perspective, introduced path-specific effects shed light on the issue of when specific paths should be considered fair.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

RAFT: A Real-World Few-Shot Text Classification Benchmark

Large pre-trained language models have shown promise for few-shot learning, completing text-based tasks given only a few task-specific examples. Will models soon solve classification tasks that have so far been reserved for human research assistants? Existing benchmarks are not designed to measure progress in applied settings, and so don't directly answer this question. The RAFT benchmark (Real-world Annotated Few-shot Tasks) focuses on naturally occurring tasks and uses an evaluation setup that mirrors deployment. Baseline evaluations on RAFT reveal areas current techniques struggle with: reasoning over long texts and tasks with many classes. Human baselines show that some classification tasks are difficult for non-expert humans, reflecting that real-world value sometimes depends on domain expertise. Yet even non-expert human baseline F1 scores exceed GPT-3 by an average of 0.11. The RAFT datasets and leaderboard will track which model improvements translate into real-world benefits at https://raft.elicit.org .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

AI Ethics Statements -- Analysis and lessons learnt from NeurIPS Broader Impact Statements

Ethics statements have been proposed as a mechanism to increase transparency and promote reflection on the societal impacts of published research. In 2020, the machine learning (ML) conference NeurIPS broke new ground by requiring that all papers include a broader impact statement. This requirement was removed in 2021, in favour of a checklist approach. The 2020 statements therefore provide a unique opportunity to learn from the broader impact experiment: to investigate the benefits and challenges of this and similar governance mechanisms, as well as providing an insight into how ML researchers think about the societal impacts of their own work. Such learning is needed as NeurIPS and other venues continue to question and adapt their policies. To enable this, we have created a dataset containing the impact statements from all NeurIPS 2020 papers, along with additional information such as affiliation type, location and subject area, and a simple visualisation tool for exploration. We also provide an initial quantitative analysis of the dataset, covering representation, engagement, common themes, and willingness to discuss potential harms alongside benefits. We investigate how these vary by geography, affiliation type and subject area. Drawing on these findings, we discuss the potential benefits and negative outcomes of ethics statement requirements, and their possible causes and associated challenges. These lead us to several lessons to be learnt from the 2020 requirement: (i) the importance of creating the right incentives, (ii) the need for clear expectations and guidance, and (iii) the importance of transparency and constructive deliberation. We encourage other researchers to use our dataset to provide additional analysis, to further our understanding of how researchers responded to this requirement, and to investigate the benefits and challenges of this and related mechanisms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Institutionalising Ethics in AI through Broader Impact Requirements

Turning principles into practice is one of the most pressing challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) governance. In this article, we reflect on a novel governance initiative by one of the world's largest AI conferences. In 2020, the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) introduced a requirement for submitting authors to include a statement on the broader societal impacts of their research. Drawing insights from similar governance initiatives, including institutional review boards (IRBs) and impact requirements for funding applications, we investigate the risks, challenges and potential benefits of such an initiative. Among the challenges, we list a lack of recognised best practice and procedural transparency, researcher opportunity costs, institutional and social pressures, cognitive biases, and the inherently difficult nature of the task. The potential benefits, on the other hand, include improved anticipation and identification of impacts, better communication with policy and governance experts, and a general strengthening of the norms around responsible research. To maximise the chance of success, we recommend measures to increase transparency, improve guidance, create incentives to engage earnestly with the process, and facilitate public deliberation on the requirement's merits and future. Perhaps the most important contribution from this analysis are the insights we can gain regarding effective community-based governance and the role and responsibility of the AI research community more broadly.

cs.CY↗