arXiv subjects

Erik Jones

Publications and source records attributed to Erik Jones.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groups

Selective classification, in which models can abstain on uncertain predictions, is a natural approach to improving accuracy in settings where errors are costly but abstentions are manageable. In this paper, we find that while selective classification can improve average accuracies, it can simultaneously magnify existing accuracy disparities between various groups within a population, especially in the presence of spurious correlations. We observe this behavior consistently across five vision and NLP datasets. Surprisingly, increasing abstentions can even decrease accuracies on some groups. To better understand this phenomenon, we study the margin distribution, which captures the model's confidences over all predictions. For symmetric margin distributions, we prove that whether selective classification monotonically improves or worsens accuracy is fully determined by the accuracy at full coverage (i.e., without any abstentions) and whether the distribution satisfies a property we call left-log-concavity. Our analysis also shows that selective classification tends to magnify full-coverage accuracy disparities. Motivated by our analysis, we train distributionally-robust models that achieve similar full-coverage accuracies across groups and show that selective classification uniformly improves each group on these models. Altogether, our results suggest that selective classification should be used with care and underscore the importance of training models to perform equally well across groups at full coverage.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Robust Encodings: A Framework for Combating Adversarial Typos

Despite excellent performance on many tasks, NLP systems are easily fooled by small adversarial perturbations of inputs. Existing procedures to defend against such perturbations are either (i) heuristic in nature and susceptible to stronger attacks or (ii) provide guaranteed robustness to worst-case attacks, but are incompatible with state-of-the-art models like BERT. In this work, we introduce robust encodings (RobEn): a simple framework that confers guaranteed robustness, without making compromises on model architecture. The core component of RobEn is an encoding function, which maps sentences to a smaller, discrete space of encodings. Systems using these encodings as a bottleneck confer guaranteed robustness with standard training, and the same encodings can be used across multiple tasks. We identify two desiderata to construct robust encoding functions: perturbations of a sentence should map to a small set of encodings (stability), and models using encodings should still perform well (fidelity). We instantiate RobEn to defend against a large family of adversarial typos. Across six tasks from GLUE, our instantiation of RobEn paired with BERT achieves an average robust accuracy of 71.3% against all adversarial typos in the family considered, while previous work using a typo-corrector achieves only 35.3% accuracy against a simple greedy attack.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2019

Deep Learning for the Digital Pathologic Diagnosis of Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evaluating the Impact of a Web-based Diagnostic Assistant

While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms continue to rival human performance on a variety of clinical tasks, the question of how best to incorporate these algorithms into clinical workflows remains relatively unexplored. We investigated how AI can affect pathologist performance on the task of differentiating between two subtypes of primary liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC). We developed an AI diagnostic assistant using a deep learning model and evaluated its effect on the diagnostic performance of eleven pathologists with varying levels of expertise. Our deep learning model achieved an accuracy of 0.885 on an internal validation set of 26 slides and an accuracy of 0.842 on an independent test set of 80 slides. Despite having high accuracy on a hold out test set, the diagnostic assistant did not significantly improve performance across pathologists (p-value: 0.184, OR: 1.287 (95% CI 0.886, 1.871)). Model correctness was observed to significantly bias the pathologist decisions. When the model was correct, assistance significantly improved accuracy across all pathologist experience levels and for all case difficulty levels (p-value: < 0.001, OR: 4.289 (95% CI 2.360, 7.794)). When the model was incorrect, assistance significantly decreased accuracy across all 11 pathologists and for all case difficulty levels (p-value < 0.001, OR: 0.253 (95% CI 0.126, 0.507)). Our results highlight the challenges of translating AI models to the clinical setting, especially for difficult subspecialty tasks such as tumor classification. In particular, they suggest that incorrect model predictions could strongly bias an expert's diagnosis, an important factor to consider when designing medical AI-assistance systems.

eess.IV↗