Processing math: 100%

fairXiv Pronounced fair • kive

16737 latest Fairness/Ethics + ML/AI papers

Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions

Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh, Kenan Alkiek, Kundan Krishna, Yachuan Liu, Ziqiao Ma, Savvas Petridis, Yi-Hao Peng, Li Qiwei, Sushrita Rakshit, Chenglei Si, Yutong Xie, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Frank Bentley, Joyce Chai, Zachary Lipton, Qiaozhu Mei, Rada Mihalcea, Michael Terry, Diyi Yang, Meredith Ringel Morris, Paul Resnick, David Jurgens

arXiv:2406.09264v3 »Full PDF »

proposing "bidirectional human-AI alignment" framework after a systematic review of over 400 align...

Recent advancements in general-purpose AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. However, the lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. In particular, ML- and philosophy-oriented alignment research often views AI alignment as a static, unidirectional process (i.e., aiming to ensure that AI systems' objectives match humans) rather than an ongoing, mutual alignment problem. This perspective largely neglects the long-term interaction and dynamic changes of alignment. To understand these gaps, we introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML). We characterize, define and scope human-AI alignment. From this, we present a conceptual framework of "Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment" to organize the literature from a human-centered perspective. This framework encompasses both 1) conventional studies of aligning AI to humans that ensures AI produces the intended outcomes determined by humans, and 2) a proposed concept of aligning humans to AI, which aims to help individuals and society adjust to AI advancements both cognitively and behaviorally. Additionally, we articulate the key findings derived from literature analysis, including literature gaps and trends, human values, and interaction techniques. To pave the way for future studies, we envision three key challenges and give recommendations for future research.Abstract

Measuring and Addressing Indexical Bias in Information Retrieval

Caleb Ziems, William Held, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2406.04298v1 »Full PDF »

ACL 2024

Information Retrieval (IR) systems are designed to deliver relevant content, but traditional systems may not optimize rankings for fairness, neutrality, or the balance of ideas. Consequently, IR can often introduce indexical biases, or biases in the positional order of documents. Although indexical bias can demonstrably affect people's opinion, voting patterns, and other behaviors, these issues remain understudied as the field lacks reliable metrics and procedures for automatically measuring indexical bias. Towards this end, we introduce the PAIR framework, which supports automatic bias audits for ranked documents or entire IR systems. After introducing DUO, the first general-purpose automatic bias metric, we run an extensive evaluation of 8 IR systems on a new corpus of 32k synthetic and 4.7k natural documents, with 4k queries spanning 1.4k controversial issue topics. A human behavioral study validates our approach, showing that our bias metric can help predict when and how indexical bias will shift a reader's opinion.Abstract

A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming

Shayne Longpre, Sayash Kapoor, Kevin Klyman, Ashwin Ramaswami, Rishi Bommasani, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Yangsibo Huang, Aviya Skowron, Zheng-Xin Yong, Suhas Kotha, Yi Zeng, Weiyan Shi, Xianjun Yang, Reid Southen, Alexander Robey, Patrick Chao, Diyi Yang, Ruoxi Jia, Daniel Kang, Sandy Pentland, Arvind Narayanan, Percy Liang, Peter Henderson

arXiv:2403.04893v1 »Full PDF »
Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, indemnifying public interest safety research and protecting it from the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.Abstract

Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?

Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhehao Zhang, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2305.03514v3 »Full PDF »

To appear in "Computational Linguistics" (CL)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of successfully performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without training data). If zero-shot LLMs can also reliably classify and explain social phenomena like persuasiveness and political ideology, then LLMs could augment the Computational Social Science (CSS) pipeline in important ways. This work provides a road map for using LLMs as CSS tools. Towards this end, we contribute a set of prompting best practices and an extensive evaluation pipeline to measure the zero-shot performance of 13 language models on 25 representative English CSS benchmarks. On taxonomic labeling tasks (classification), LLMs fail to outperform the best fine-tuned models but still achieve fair levels of agreement with humans. On free-form coding tasks (generation), LLMs produce explanations that often exceed the quality of crowdworkers' gold references. We conclude that the performance of today's LLMs can augment the CSS research pipeline in two ways: (1) serving as zero-shot data annotators on human annotation teams, and (2) bootstrapping challenging creative generation tasks (e.g., explaining the underlying attributes of a text). In summary, LLMs are posed to meaningfully participate in social science analysis in partnership with humans.Abstract

How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs

Yi Zeng, Hongpeng Lin, Jingwen Zhang, Diyi Yang, Ruoxi Jia, Weiyan Shi

arXiv:2401.06373v2 »Full PDF »

14 pages of the main text, qualitative examples of jailbreaks may be harmful in nature

Most traditional AI safety research has approached AI models as machines and centered on algorithm-focused attacks developed by security experts. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly common and competent, non-expert users can also impose risks during daily interactions. This paper introduces a new perspective to jailbreak LLMs as human-like communicators, to explore this overlooked intersection between everyday language interaction and AI safety. Specifically, we study how to persuade LLMs to jailbreak them. First, we propose a persuasion taxonomy derived from decades of social science research. Then, we apply the taxonomy to automatically generate interpretable persuasive adversarial prompts (PAP) to jailbreak LLMs. Results show that persuasion significantly increases the jailbreak performance across all risk categories: PAP consistently achieves an attack success rate of over 92% on Llama 2-7b Chat, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in 10 trials, surpassing recent algorithm-focused attacks. On the defense side, we explore various mechanisms against PAP and, found a significant gap in existing defenses, and advocate for more fundamental mitigation for highly interactive LLMsAbstract

Multi-VALUE: A Framework for Cross-Dialectal English NLP

Caleb Ziems, William Held, Jingfeng Yang, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2212.08011v1 »Full PDF »

24 pages (9 pages + appendix); 21 tables; 5 figures

Dialect differences caused by regional, social, and economic barriers cause performance discrepancies for many groups of users of language technology. Fair, inclusive, and equitable language technology must critically be dialect invariant, meaning that performance remains constant over dialectal shifts. Current English systems often fall significantly short of this ideal since they are designed and tested on a single dialect: Standard American English. We introduce Multi-VALUE -- a suite of resources for evaluating and achieving English dialect invariance. We build a controllable rule-based translation system spanning 50 English dialects and a total of 189 unique linguistic features. Our translation maps Standard American English text to synthetic form of each dialect, which uses an upper-bound on the natural density of features in that dialect. First, we use this system to build stress tests for question answering, machine translation, and semantic parsing tasks. Stress tests reveal significant performance disparities for leading models on non-standard dialects. Second, we use this system as a data augmentation technique to improve the dialect robustness of existing systems. Finally, we partner with native speakers of Chicano and Indian English to release new gold-standard variants of the popular CoQA task.Abstract

Geographic Citation Gaps in NLP Research

Mukund Rungta, Janvijay Singh, Saif M. Mohammad, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2210.14424v1 »Full PDF »

EMNLP 2022 Main Conference

In a fair world, people have equitable opportunities to education, to conduct scientific research, to publish, and to get credit for their work, regardless of where they live. However, it is common knowledge among researchers that a vast number of papers accepted at top NLP venues come from a handful of western countries and (lately) China; whereas, very few papers from Africa and South America get published. Similar disparities are also believed to exist for paper citation counts. In the spirit of "what we do not measure, we cannot improve", this work asks a series of questions on the relationship between geographical location and publication success (acceptance in top NLP venues and citation impact). We first created a dataset of 70,000 papers from the ACL Anthology, extracted their meta-information, and generated their citation network. We then show that not only are there substantial geographical disparities in paper acceptance and citation but also that these disparities persist even when controlling for a number of variables such as venue of publication and sub-field of NLP. Further, despite some steps taken by the NLP community to improve geographical diversity, we show that the disparity in publication metrics across locations is still on an increasing trend since the early 2000s. We release our code and dataset here: https://github.com/iamjanvijay/acl-cite-netAbstract

Causal Inference in Natural Language Processing: Estimation, Prediction, Interpretation and Beyond

Amir Feder, Katherine A. Keith, Emaad Manzoor, Reid Pryzant, Dhanya Sridhar, Zach Wood-Doughty, Jacob Eisenstein, Justin Grimmer, Roi Reichart, Margaret E. Roberts, Brandon M. Stewart, Victor Veitch, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2109.00725v2 »Full PDF »

Accepted to Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL)

A fundamental goal of scientific research is to learn about causal relationships. However, despite its critical role in the life and social sciences, causality has not had the same importance in Natural Language Processing (NLP), which has traditionally placed more emphasis on predictive tasks. This distinction is beginning to fade, with an emerging area of interdisciplinary research at the convergence of causal inference and language processing. Still, research on causality in NLP remains scattered across domains without unified definitions, benchmark datasets and clear articulations of the challenges and opportunities in the application of causal inference to the textual domain, with its unique properties. In this survey, we consolidate research across academic areas and situate it in the broader NLP landscape. We introduce the statistical challenge of estimating causal effects with text, encompassing settings where text is used as an outcome, treatment, or to address confounding. In addition, we explore potential uses of causal inference to improve the robustness, fairness, and interpretability of NLP models. We thus provide a unified overview of causal inference for the NLP community.Abstract

The Moral Integrity Corpus: A Benchmark for Ethical Dialogue Systems

Caleb Ziems, Jane A. Yu, Yi-Chia Wang, Alon Halevy, Diyi Yang

arXiv:2204.03021v1 »Full PDF »

ACL 2022 main conference

Conversational agents have come increasingly closer to human competence in open-domain dialogue settings; however, such models can reflect insensitive, hurtful, or entirely incoherent viewpoints that erode a user's trust in the moral integrity of the system. Moral deviations are difficult to mitigate because moral judgments are not universal, and there may be multiple competing judgments that apply to a situation simultaneously. In this work, we introduce a new resource, not to authoritatively resolve moral ambiguities, but instead to facilitate systematic understanding of the intuitions, values and moral judgments reflected in the utterances of dialogue systems. The Moral Integrity Corpus, MIC, is such a resource, which captures the moral assumptions of 38k prompt-reply pairs, using 99k distinct Rules of Thumb (RoTs). Each RoT reflects a particular moral conviction that can explain why a chatbot's reply may appear acceptable or problematic. We further organize RoTs with a set of 9 moral and social attributes and benchmark performance for attribute classification. Most importantly, we show that current neural language models can automatically generate new RoTs that reasonably describe previously unseen interactions, but they still struggle with certain scenarios. Our findings suggest that MIC will be a useful resource for understanding and language models' implicit moral assumptions and flexibly benchmarking the integrity of conversational agents. To download the data, see https://github.com/GT-SALT/micAbstract

Mitigating Racial Biases in Toxic Language Detection with an Equity-Based Ensemble Framework

Matan Halevy, Camille Harris, Amy Bruckman, Diyi Yang, Ayanna Howard

arXiv:2109.13137v1 »Full PDF »

Accepted to ACM EAAMO '21: https://eaamo.org/accepted/ Code available: https://github.com/matanhal...

Recent research has demonstrated how racial biases against users who write African American English exists in popular toxic language datasets. While previous work has focused on a single fairness criteria, we propose to use additional descriptive fairness metrics to better understand the source of these biases. We demonstrate that different benchmark classifiers, as well as two in-process bias-remediation techniques, propagate racial biases even in a larger corpus. We then propose a novel ensemble-framework that uses a specialized classifier that is fine-tuned to the African American English dialect. We show that our proposed framework substantially reduces the racial biases that the model learns from these datasets. We demonstrate how the ensemble framework improves fairness metrics across all sample datasets with minimal impact on the classification performance, and provide empirical evidence in its ability to unlearn the annotation biases towards authors who use African American English. ** Please note that this work may contain examples of offensive words and phrases.Abstract