Search for: All records

In machine learning research, it is common to evaluate algorithms via their performance on standard benchmark datasets. While a growing body of work establishes guidelines for—and levies criticisms at—data and benchmarking practices in machine learning, comparatively less attention has been paid to the data repositories where these datasets are stored, documented, and shared. In this paper, we analyze the landscape of these benchmark data repositories and the role they can play in improving benchmarking. This role includes addressing issues with both datasets themselves (e.g., representational harms, construct validity) and the manner in which evaluation is carried out using such datasets (e.g., overemphasis on a few datasets and metrics, lack of reproducibility). To this end, we identify and discuss a set of considerations surrounding the design and use of benchmark data repositories, with a focus on improving benchmarking practices in machine learning. 

*Uncertainty expressions* such as ‘probably’ or ‘highly unlikely’ are pervasive in human language. While prior work has established that there is population-level agreement in terms of how humans quantitatively interpret these expressions, there has been little inquiry into the abilities of language models in the same context. In this paper, we investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. Our approach assesses whether language models can employ theory of mind in this setting: understanding the uncertainty of another agent about a particular statement, independently of the model’s own certainty about that statement. We find that 7 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. However, we observe systematically different behavior depending on whether a statement is actually true or false. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge (as compared to humans). These findings raise important questions and have broad implications for human-AI and AI-AI communication. 

The deployment of machine learning classifiers in high-stakes domains requires well-calibrated confidence scores for model predictions. In this paper we introduce the notion of variable-based calibration to characterize calibration properties of a model with respect to a variable of interest, generalizing traditional score-based metrics such as expected calibration error (ECE). In particular, we find that models with near-perfect ECE can exhibit significant miscalibration as a function of features of the data. We demonstrate this phenomenon both theoretically and in practice on multiple well-known datasets, and show that it can persist after the application of existing calibration methods. To mitigate this issue, we propose strategies for detection, visualization, and quantification of variable-based calibration error. We then examine the limitations of current score-based calibration methods and explore potential modifications. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings, emphasizing that an understanding of calibration beyond simple aggregate measures is crucial for endeavors such as fairness and model interpretability. 

Improving our understanding of how humans perceive AI teammates is an important foundation for our general understanding of human-AI teams. Extending relevant work from cognitive science, we propose a framework based on item response theory for modeling these perceptions. We apply this framework to real-world experiments, in which each participant works alongside another person or an AI agent in a question-answering setting, repeatedly assessing their teammate’s performance. Using this experimental data, we demonstrate the use of our framework for testing research questions about people’s perceptions of both AI agents and other people. We contrast mental models of AI teammates with those of human teammates as we characterize the dimensionality of these mental models, their development over time, and the influence of the participants’ own self-perception. Our results indicate that people expect AI agents’ performance to be significantly better on average than the performance of other humans, with less variation across different types of problems. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for human-AI interaction.