Lensing Machines: Representing Perspective in Latent Variable Models
Authors:
Karthik Dinakar,
Henry Lieberman
Abstract:
Many datasets represent a combination of different ways of looking at the same data that lead to different generalizations. For example, a corpus with examples generated by different people may be mixtures of many perspectives and can be viewed with different perspectives by others. It isnt always possible to represent the viewpoints by a clean separation, in advance, of examples representing each…
▽ More
Many datasets represent a combination of different ways of looking at the same data that lead to different generalizations. For example, a corpus with examples generated by different people may be mixtures of many perspectives and can be viewed with different perspectives by others. It isnt always possible to represent the viewpoints by a clean separation, in advance, of examples representing each viewpoint and train a separate model for each viewpoint. We introduce lensing, a mixed initiative technique to extract lenses or map**s between machine learned representations and perspectives of human experts, and to generate lensed models that afford multiple perspectives of the same dataset. We apply lensing for two classes of latent variable models: a mixed membership model, a matrix factorization model in the context of two mental health applications, and we capture and imbue the perspectives of clinical psychologists into these models. Our work shows the benefits of the machine learning practitioner formally incorporating the perspective of a knowledgeable domain expert into their models rather than estimating unlensed models themselves in isolation.
△ Less
Submitted 20 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment
Authors:
Chelsea Barabas,
Karthik Dinakar,
Joichi Ito,
Madars Virza,
Jonathan Zittrain
Abstract:
Actuarial risk assessments might be unduly perceived as a neutral way to counteract implicit bias and increase the fairness of decisions made at almost every juncture of the criminal justice system, from pretrial release to sentencing, parole and probation. In recent times these assessments have come under increased scrutiny, as critics claim that the statistical techniques underlying them might r…
▽ More
Actuarial risk assessments might be unduly perceived as a neutral way to counteract implicit bias and increase the fairness of decisions made at almost every juncture of the criminal justice system, from pretrial release to sentencing, parole and probation. In recent times these assessments have come under increased scrutiny, as critics claim that the statistical techniques underlying them might reproduce existing patterns of discrimination and historical biases that are reflected in the data. Much of this debate is centered around competing notions of fairness and predictive accuracy, resting on the contested use of variables that act as "proxies" for characteristics legally protected against discrimination, such as race and gender. We argue that a core ethical debate surrounding the use of regression in risk assessments is not simply one of bias or accuracy. Rather, it's one of purpose. If machine learning is operationalized merely in the service of predicting individual future crime, then it becomes difficult to break cycles of criminalization that are driven by the iatrogenic effects of the criminal justice system itself. We posit that machine learning should not be used for prediction, but rather to surface covariates that are fed into a causal model for understanding the social, structural and psychological drivers of crime. We propose an alternative application of machine learning and causal inference away from predicting risk scores to risk mitigation.
△ Less
Submitted 14 July, 2018; v1 submitted 21 December, 2017;
originally announced December 2017.
