Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Emma Pierson

Publications and source records attributed to Emma Pierson.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
arXiv2024

Shaping AI's Impact on Billions of Lives

Artificial Intelligence (AI), like any transformative technology, has the potential to be a double-edged sword, leading either toward significant advancements or detrimental outcomes for society as a whole. As is often the case when it comes to widely-used technologies in market economies (e.g., cars and semiconductor chips), commercial interest tends to be the predominant guiding factor. The AI community is at risk of becoming polarized to either take a laissez-faire attitude toward AI development, or to call for government overregulation. Between these two poles we argue for the community of AI practitioners to consciously and proactively work for the common good. This paper offers a blueprint for a new type of innovation infrastructure including 18 concrete milestones to guide AI research in that direction. Our view is that we are still in the early days of practical AI, and focused efforts by practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders can still maximize the upsides of AI and minimize its downsides. We talked to luminaries such as recent Nobelist John Jumper on science, President Barack Obama on governance, former UN Ambassador and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice on security, philanthropist Eric Schmidt on several topics, and science fiction novelist Neal Stephenson on entertainment. This ongoing dialogue and collaborative effort has produced a comprehensive, realistic view of what the actual impact of AI could be, from a diverse assembly of thinkers with deep understanding of this technology and these domains. From these exchanges, five recurring guidelines emerged, which form the cornerstone of a framework for beginning to harness AI in service of the public good. They not only guide our efforts in discovery but also shape our approach to deploying this transformative technology responsibly and ethically.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2024

Choosing the Right Weights: Balancing Value, Strategy, and Noise in Recommender Systems

Many recommender systems optimize a linear weighting of different user behaviors, such as clicks, likes, and shares. We analyze the optimal choice of weights from the perspectives of both users and content producers who strategically respond to the weights. We consider three aspects of each potential behavior: value-faithfulness (how well a behavior indicates whether the user values the content), strategy-robustness (how hard it is for producers to manipulate the behavior), and noisiness (how much estimation error there is in predicting the behavior). Our theoretical results show that for users, up-weighting more value-faithful and less noisy behaviors leads to higher utility, while for producers, up-weighting more value-faithful and strategy-robust behaviors leads to higher welfare (and the impact of noise is non-monotonic). Finally, we apply our framework to design weights on Facebook, using a large-scale dataset of approximately 70 million URLs shared on Facebook. Strikingly, we find that our user-optimal weight vector (a) delivers higher user value than a vector not accounting for variance; (b) also enhances broader societal outcomes, reducing misinformation and raising the quality of the URL domains, outcomes that were not directly targeted in our theoretical framework.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2024

MediQ: Question-Asking LLMs and a Benchmark for Reliable Interactive Clinical Reasoning

Users typically engage with LLMs interactively, yet most existing benchmarks evaluate them in a static, single-turn format, posing reliability concerns in interactive scenarios. We identify a key obstacle towards reliability: LLMs are trained to answer any question, even with incomplete context or insufficient knowledge. In this paper, we propose to change the static paradigm to an interactive one, develop systems that proactively ask questions to gather more information and respond reliably, and introduce an benchmark - MediQ - to evaluate question-asking ability in LLMs. MediQ simulates clinical interactions consisting of a Patient System and an adaptive Expert System; with potentially incomplete initial information, the Expert refrains from making diagnostic decisions when unconfident, and instead elicits missing details via follow-up questions. We provide a pipeline to convert single-turn medical benchmarks into an interactive format. Our results show that directly prompting state-of-the-art LLMs to ask questions degrades performance, indicating that adapting LLMs to proactive information-seeking settings is nontrivial. We experiment with abstention strategies to better estimate model confidence and decide when to ask questions, improving diagnostic accuracy by 22.3%; however, performance still lags compared to an (unrealistic in practice) upper bound with complete information upfront. Further analyses show improved interactive performance with filtering irrelevant contexts and reformatting conversations. Overall, we introduce a novel problem towards LLM reliability, an interactive MediQ benchmark and a novel question-asking system, and highlight directions to extend LLMs' information-seeking abilities in critical domains.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2024

Annotation alignment: Comparing LLM and human annotations of conversational safety

Do LLMs align with human perceptions of safety? We study this question via annotation alignment, the extent to which LLMs and humans agree when annotating the safety of user-chatbot conversations. We leverage the recent DICES dataset (Aroyo et al., 2023), in which 350 conversations are each rated for safety by 112 annotators spanning 10 race-gender groups. GPT-4 achieves a Pearson correlation of $r = 0.59$ with the average annotator rating, \textit{higher} than the median annotator's correlation with the average ($r=0.51$). We show that larger datasets are needed to resolve whether LLMs exhibit disparities in how well they correlate with different demographic groups. Also, there is substantial idiosyncratic variation in correlation within groups, suggesting that race & gender do not fully capture differences in alignment. Finally, we find that GPT-4 cannot predict when one demographic group finds a conversation more unsafe than another.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2024

Testing for racial bias using inconsistent perceptions of race

Tests for racial bias commonly assess whether two people of different races are treated differently. A fundamental challenge is that, because two people may differ in many ways, factors besides race might explain differences in treatment. Here, we propose a test for bias which circumvents the difficulty of comparing two people by instead assessing whether the $\textit{same person}$ is treated differently when their race is perceived differently. We apply our method to test for bias in police traffic stops, finding that the same driver is likelier to be searched or arrested by police when they are perceived as Hispanic than when they are perceived as white. Our test is broadly applicable to other datasets where race, gender, or other identity data are perceived rather than self-reported, and the same person is observed multiple times.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2024

Participation in the age of foundation models

Growing interest and investment in the capabilities of foundation models has positioned such systems to impact a wide array of public services. Alongside these opportunities is the risk that these systems reify existing power imbalances and cause disproportionate harm to marginalized communities. Participatory approaches hold promise to instead lend agency and decision-making power to marginalized stakeholders. But existing approaches in participatory AI/ML are typically deeply grounded in context - how do we apply these approaches to foundation models, which are, by design, disconnected from context? Our paper interrogates this question. First, we examine existing attempts at incorporating participation into foundation models. We highlight the tension between participation and scale, demonstrating that it is intractable for impacted communities to meaningfully shape a foundation model that is intended to be universally applicable. In response, we develop a blueprint for participatory foundation models that identifies more local, application-oriented opportunities for meaningful participation. In addition to the "foundation" layer, our framework proposes the "subfloor'' layer, in which stakeholders develop shared technical infrastructure, norms and governance for a grounded domain, and the "surface'' layer, in which affected communities shape the use of a foundation model for a specific downstream task. The intermediate "subfloor'' layer scopes the range of potential harms to consider, and affords communities more concrete avenues for deliberation and intervention. At the same time, it avoids duplicative effort by scaling input across relevant use cases. Through three case studies in clinical care, financial services, and journalism, we illustrate how this multi-layer model can create more meaningful opportunities for participation than solely intervening at the foundation layer.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2024

Topics, Authors, and Institutions in Large Language Model Research: Trends from 17K arXiv Papers

Large language models (LLMs) are dramatically influencing AI research, spurring discussions on what has changed so far and how to shape the field's future. To clarify such questions, we analyze a new dataset of 16,979 LLM-related arXiv papers, focusing on recent trends in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. First, we study disciplinary shifts: LLM research increasingly considers societal impacts, evidenced by 20x growth in LLM submissions to the Computers and Society sub-arXiv. An influx of new authors -- half of all first authors in 2023 -- are entering from non-NLP fields of CS, driving disciplinary expansion. Second, we study industry and academic publishing trends. Surprisingly, industry accounts for a smaller publication share in 2023, largely due to reduced output from Google and other Big Tech companies; universities in Asia are publishing more. Third, we study institutional collaboration: while industry-academic collaborations are common, they tend to focus on the same topics that industry focuses on rather than bridging differences. The most prolific institutions are all US- or China-based, but there is very little cross-country collaboration. We discuss implications around (1) how to support the influx of new authors, (2) how industry trends may affect academics, and (3) possible effects of (the lack of) collaboration.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2024

Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing

Machine learning models are often trained to predict the outcome resulting from a human decision. For example, if a doctor decides to test a patient for disease, will the patient test positive? A challenge is that historical decision-making determines whether the outcome is observed: we only observe test outcomes for patients doctors historically tested. Untested patients, for whom outcomes are unobserved, may differ from tested patients along observed and unobserved dimensions. We propose a Bayesian model class which captures this setting. The purpose of the model is to accurately estimate risk for both tested and untested patients. Estimating this model is challenging due to the wide range of possibilities for untested patients. To address this, we propose two domain constraints which are plausible in health settings: a prevalence constraint, where the overall disease prevalence is known, and an expertise constraint, where the human decision-maker deviates from purely risk-based decision-making only along a constrained feature set. We show theoretically and on synthetic data that domain constraints improve parameter inference. We apply our model to a case study of cancer risk prediction, showing that the model's inferred risk predicts cancer diagnoses, its inferred testing policy captures known public health policies, and it can identify suboptimalities in test allocation. Though our case study is in healthcare, our analysis reveals a general class of domain constraints which can improve model estimation in many settings.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2024

Recent Advances, Applications, and Open Challenges in Machine Learning for Health: Reflections from Research Roundtables at ML4H 2023 Symposium

The third ML4H symposium was held in person on December 10, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The symposium included research roundtable sessions to foster discussions between participants and senior researchers on timely and relevant topics for the \ac{ML4H} community. Encouraged by the successful virtual roundtables in the previous year, we organized eleven in-person roundtables and four virtual roundtables at ML4H 2022. The organization of the research roundtables at the conference involved 17 Senior Chairs and 19 Junior Chairs across 11 tables. Each roundtable session included invited senior chairs (with substantial experience in the field), junior chairs (responsible for facilitating the discussion), and attendees from diverse backgrounds with interest in the session's topic. Herein we detail the organization process and compile takeaways from these roundtable discussions, including recent advances, applications, and open challenges for each topic. We conclude with a summary and lessons learned across all roundtables. This document serves as a comprehensive review paper, summarizing the recent advancements in machine learning for healthcare as contributed by foremost researchers in the field.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2023

A Bayesian Spatial Model to Correct Under-Reporting in Urban Crowdsourcing

Decision-makers often observe the occurrence of events through a reporting process. City governments, for example, rely on resident reports to find and then resolve urban infrastructural problems such as fallen street trees, flooded basements, or rat infestations. Without additional assumptions, there is no way to distinguish events that occur but are not reported from events that truly did not occur--a fundamental problem in settings with positive-unlabeled data. Because disparities in reporting rates correlate with resident demographics, addressing incidents only on the basis of reports leads to systematic neglect in neighborhoods that are less likely to report events. We show how to overcome this challenge by leveraging the fact that events are spatially correlated. Our framework uses a Bayesian spatial latent variable model to infer event occurrence probabilities and applies it to storm-induced flooding reports in New York City, further pooling results across multiple storms. We show that a model accounting for under-reporting and spatial correlation predicts future reports more accurately than other models, and further induces a more equitable set of inspections: its allocations better reflect the population and provide equitable service to non-white, less traditionally educated, and lower-income residents. This finding reflects heterogeneous reporting behavior learned by the model: reporting rates are higher in Census tracts with higher populations, proportions of white residents, and proportions of owner-occupied households. Our work lays the groundwork for more equitable proactive government services, even with disparate reporting behavior.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2023

Quantifying disparities in intimate partner violence: a machine learning method to correct for underreporting

Estimating the prevalence of a medical condition, or the proportion of the population in which it occurs, is a fundamental problem in healthcare and public health. Accurate estimates of the relative prevalence across groups -- capturing, for example, that a condition affects women more frequently than men -- facilitate effective and equitable health policy which prioritizes groups who are disproportionately affected by a condition. However, it is difficult to estimate relative prevalence when a medical condition is underreported. In this work, we provide a method for accurately estimating the relative prevalence of underreported medical conditions, building upon the positive unlabeled learning framework. We show that under the commonly made covariate shift assumption -- i.e., that the probability of having a disease conditional on symptoms remains constant across groups -- we can recover the relative prevalence, even without restrictive assumptions commonly made in positive unlabeled learning and even if it is impossible to recover the absolute prevalence. We conduct experiments on synthetic and real health data which demonstrate our method's ability to recover the relative prevalence more accurately than do baselines, and demonstrate the method's robustness to plausible violations of the covariate shift assumption. We conclude by illustrating the applicability of our method to case studies of intimate partner violence and hate speech.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2023

Coarse race data conceals disparities in clinical risk score performance

Healthcare data in the United States often records only a patient's coarse race group: for example, both Indian and Chinese patients are typically coded as "Asian." It is unknown, however, whether this coarse coding conceals meaningful disparities in the performance of clinical risk scores across granular race groups. Here we show that it does. Using data from 418K emergency department visits, we assess clinical risk score performance disparities across 26 granular groups for three outcomes, five risk scores, and four performance metrics. Across outcomes and metrics, we show that the risk scores exhibit significant granular performance disparities within coarse race groups. In fact, variation in performance within coarse groups often *exceeds* the variation between coarse groups. We explore why these disparities arise, finding that outcome rates, feature distributions, and the relationships between features and outcomes all vary significantly across granular groups. Our results suggest that healthcare providers, hospital systems, and machine learning researchers should strive to collect, release, and use granular race data in place of coarse race data, and that existing analyses may significantly underestimate racial disparities in performance.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2023

Reconciling the accuracy-diversity trade-off in recommendations

In recommendation settings, there is an apparent trade-off between the goals of accuracy (to recommend items a user is most likely to want) and diversity (to recommend items representing a range of categories). As such, real-world recommender systems often explicitly incorporate diversity separately from accuracy. This approach, however, leaves a basic question unanswered: Why is there a trade-off in the first place? We show how the trade-off can be explained via a user's consumption constraints -- users typically only consume a few of the items they are recommended. In a stylized model we introduce, objectives that account for this constraint induce diverse recommendations, while objectives that do not account for this constraint induce homogeneous recommendations. This suggests that accuracy and diversity appear misaligned because standard accuracy metrics do not consider consumption constraints. Our model yields precise and interpretable characterizations of diversity in different settings, giving practical insights into the design of diverse recommendations.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2023

Human mobility networks reveal increased segregation in large cities

A long-standing expectation is that large, dense, and cosmopolitan areas support socioeconomic mixing and exposure between diverse individuals. It has been difficult to assess this hypothesis because past approaches to measuring socioeconomic mixing have relied on static residential housing data rather than real-life exposures between people at work, in places of leisure, and in home neighborhoods. Here we develop a new measure of exposure segregation (ES) that captures the socioeconomic diversity of everyday encounters. Leveraging cell phone mobility data to represent 1.6 billion exposures among 9.6 million people in the United States, we measure exposure segregation across 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and 2829 counties. We discover that exposure segregation is 67% higher in the 10 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) than in small MSAs with fewer than 100,000 residents. This means that, contrary to expectation, residents of large cosmopolitan areas have significantly less exposure to diverse individuals. Second, we find evidence that large cities offer a greater choice of differentiated spaces targeted to specific socioeconomic groups, a dynamic that accounts for this increase in everyday socioeconomic segregation. Third, we discover that this segregation-increasing effect is countered when a city's hubs (e.g. shopping malls) are positioned to bridge diverse neighborhoods and thus attract people of all socioeconomic statuses. Overall, our findings challenge a long-standing conjecture in human geography and urban design, and highlight how built environment can both prevent and facilitate exposure between diverse individuals.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2023

Detecting disparities in police deployments using dashcam data

Large-scale policing data is vital for detecting inequity in police behavior and policing algorithms. However, one important type of policing data remains largely unavailable within the United States: aggregated police deployment data capturing which neighborhoods have the heaviest police presences. Here we show that disparities in police deployment levels can be quantified by detecting police vehicles in dashcam images of public street scenes. Using a dataset of 24,803,854 dashcam images from rideshare drivers in New York City, we find that police vehicles can be detected with high accuracy (average precision 0.82, AUC 0.99) and identify 233,596 images which contain police vehicles. There is substantial inequality across neighborhoods in police vehicle deployment levels. The neighborhood with the highest deployment levels has almost 20 times higher levels than the neighborhood with the lowest. Two strikingly different types of areas experience high police vehicle deployments - 1) dense, higher-income, commercial areas and 2) lower-income neighborhoods with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic residents. We discuss the implications of these disparities for policing equity and for algorithms trained on policing data.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2022

How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we survey the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction is 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers are similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agree (93%) with their predicted acceptance probabilities, but there is a notable 7% responses where authors think their better paper will face a worse outcome. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate -- about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2022

Trucks Don't Mean Trump: Diagnosing Human Error in Image Analysis

Algorithms provide powerful tools for detecting and dissecting human bias and error. Here, we develop machine learning methods to to analyze how humans err in a particular high-stakes task: image interpretation. We leverage a unique dataset of 16,135,392 human predictions of whether a neighborhood voted for Donald Trump or Joe Biden in the 2020 US election, based on a Google Street View image. We show that by training a machine learning estimator of the Bayes optimal decision for each image, we can provide an actionable decomposition of human error into bias, variance, and noise terms, and further identify specific features (like pickup trucks) which lead humans astray. Our methods can be applied to ensure that human-in-the-loop decision-making is accurate and fair and are also applicable to black-box algorithmic systems.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2021

WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts

Distribution shifts -- where the training distribution differs from the test distribution -- can substantially degrade the accuracy of machine learning (ML) systems deployed in the wild. Despite their ubiquity in the real-world deployments, these distribution shifts are under-represented in the datasets widely used in the ML community today. To address this gap, we present WILDS, a curated benchmark of 10 datasets reflecting a diverse range of distribution shifts that naturally arise in real-world applications, such as shifts across hospitals for tumor identification; across camera traps for wildlife monitoring; and across time and location in satellite imaging and poverty mapping. On each dataset, we show that standard training yields substantially lower out-of-distribution than in-distribution performance. This gap remains even with models trained by existing methods for tackling distribution shifts, underscoring the need for new methods for training models that are more robust to the types of distribution shifts that arise in practice. To facilitate method development, we provide an open-source package that automates dataset loading, contains default model architectures and hyperparameters, and standardizes evaluations. Code and leaderboards are available at https://wilds.stanford.edu.

cs.LG↗