DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2007.06761V2 [Cs.CL] 23 Sep 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2007.06761V2 [Cs.CL] 23 Sep 2020 Can neural networks acquire a structural bias from raw linguistic data? Alex Warstadt ([email protected]) Department of Linguistics, New York University New York, NY 10003 USA Samuel R. Bowman ([email protected]) Department of Linguistics & Center for Data Science & Department of Computer Science, New York University New York, NY 10003 USA Abstract Training Has the man who has gone seen the cat? Has the man who gone has seen the cat? We evaluate whether BERT, a widely used neural network for sentence processing, acquires an inductive bias towards form- Hypothesis Space ? ing structural generalizations through pretraining on raw data. We conduct four experiments testing its preference for struc- Structural Generalization: Move the Linear Generalization: Move the tural vs. linear generalizations in different structure-dependent structurally highest auxiliary to the front. linearly last auxiliary to the front. phenomena. We find that BERT makes a structural general- ization in 3 out of 4 empirical domains—subject-auxiliary in- version, reflexive binding, and verb tense detection in embed- has the man who has gone has seen the cat? ded clauses—but makes a linear generalization when tested on NPI licensing. We argue that these results are the strongest ev- idence so far from artificial learners supporting the proposition that a structural bias can be acquired from raw data. If this con- clusion is correct, it is tentative evidence that some linguistic universals can be acquired by learners without innate biases. Test behavior: Structural bias observed Test behavior: Linear bias observed However, the precise implications for human language acqui- sition are unclear, as humans learn language from significantly Has the man seen the cat who has gone? Has the man seen the cat who has gone? less data than BERT. Has the man has seen the cat who gone? Has the man has seen the cat who gone? Keywords: inductive bias; structure dependence; BERT; learnability of grammar; poverty of the stimulus; neural net- work; self-supervised learning Figure 1: Illustration of the poverty of the stimulus design ex- Introduction periment for subject-auxiliary inversion. Colors correspond to the binary classes for sentences. Humans appear to use structural biases to guide language ac- quisition. A classic example is the rule for subject-auxiliary inversion: Native English speakers uniformly acquire a rule downstream task may be substantially influenced by the prior like the structural generalization in Figure 1 that makes refer- knowledge acquired during pretraining. ence to hierarchical syntactic structures, despite the fact that In this work, we present new experimental evidence that the raw linguistic input often supports linear generalizations BERT may acquire an inductive bias towards structural gener- which are intuitively just as simple (Chomsky, 1965). Hu- alizations from exposure to raw data alone. We conduct four mans are not alone in possessing this inductive bias: Prior experiments inspired by McCoy, Frank, and Linzen (2018, arXiv:2007.06761v2 [cs.CL] 23 Sep 2020 investigations have identified some artificial learners with a 2020) to evaluate whether BERT has a structural or linear structural bias by virtue of having a significantly restricted the bias when generalizing about structure-dependent English hypothesis space (Perfors, Tenenbaum, & Regier, 2011) or phenomena. We follow the poverty of the stimulus design a hierarchically structured architecture that learns from pre- (Wilson, 2006), outlined in Figure 1. First, we fine-tune parsed data (McCoy, Frank, & Linzen, 2020). BERT to perform a classification task using data intention- However, these results cannot tell us whether a learner ally ambiguous between structural and linear generalizations. starting with very weak biases can acquire a structural bias Then, we probe the inductive biases of the learner by observ- merely from exposure to raw linguistic data. While inductive ing how it classifies held-out examples that disambiguate be- biases are often understood to be unchangeable properties of tween the generalizations. The classification tasks illustrate a learner, this need not be the case. For instance, in one domi- three structure dependent rules of English grammar regarding nant paradigm in natural language processing, pretraining on subject-auxiliary inversion, reflexive-antecedent agreement, raw data is used to create a general purpose sentence process- and negative polarity item (NPI) licensing. A fourth task ing model like BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations requires the classifcation of sentences based on an arbitrary from Transformers; Devlin, Chang, Lee, & Toutanova, 2019), rule: whether the verb in an embedded clause is in the past which can subsequently be fine-tuned to perform a down- tense. The data is generated from templates using the gener- stream task. The model’s inductive biases with respect to the ation tools and lexicon built by Warstadt, Cao, et al. (2019) and Warstadt, Parrish, et al. (2019). vised training on acceptability. BERT’s internal representa- The results of these experiments suggest that BERT likely tions appear to attend to linguistic features such as syntac- acquires a inductive bias towards structural rules from self- tic category (Clark, Khandelwal, Levy, & Manning, 2019) supervised pretraining. BERT generalizes in a way consistent and contain sufficient information from which to recover a with a structural bias in 3 out of 4 experiments: those involv- dependency parse for an inputted sentence (Hewitt & Man- ing subject-auxiliary inversion, reflexive binding, and embed- ning, 2019). However, it is not known whether BERT is ded verb tense detection. While these experiments leave open biased towards forming generalizations based on structural several alternative explanations for this generalization behav- features when fine-tuned on structure-dependent phenomena. ior, they add to mounting evidence that significant syntac- Indeed, it is possible that BERT could acquire knowledge of tic knowledge, including a structural biases, can be acquired hierarchical syntax but still preferentially use surface features from self-supervised learning on raw data. to generalize. Our experiments are designed to address this question. Background & Related Work Structure Dependence & the Innateness Hypothesis Self-supervised Learning and BERT The learnability of structural bias has played a large role in Recent advances in machine learning for natural language debates about human language acquisition. Chomsky (1965, processing give new reason to believe that low-bias learn- 1971) proposes that humans have an innate bias towards ers can acquire significant grammatical knowledge from raw learning structural grammatical rules. For example, children data. The Transformer neural network architecture (Vaswani must learn a general rule for subject-auxiliary inversion pri- et al., 2017) used in models like BERT has very weak bi- marily from input like (1). With this input, a learner could ases: It is a universal approximator of the class of sequence form a structural generalization (front the highest auxiliary in transduction functions (Yun, Bhojanapalli, Rawat, Reddi, & the corresponding declarative) or a linear one (e.g. front the Kumar, 2019), and it has been applied effectively in non- first or last auxiliary), but human learners always choose the linguistic domains such computer vision (Parmar et al., 2018) former. That is, no human learner of English acquires a lin- and protein sequence modeling (Rives et al., 2019). However, ear rule that produces the form in (2a) over (2b). From such rather than training a low bias model from scratch to perform examples, Chomsky (1971) concludes that humans have an a particular linguistic task, recent results show that it is far innate preference for structure-dependent rules. Otherwise it more more effective to pretrain a general purpose model on would be difficult to explain how we so consistently avoid raw data and subsequently fine-tune it on a downstream task deeply un-language-like hypotheses in lieu of significant dis- (e.g. Howard & Ruder, 2018). The implication is that they confirming evidence. acquire helpful biases from pretraining. Crucially, these models are usually pretrained with only (1) a. The cat has gone. raw data using the technique of self-supervised learning, b. Has the cat gone? which circumvents the need for labeled data by using the (2) a. *Is the man has seen the cat who going? data itself as the labels. The most common self-supervised b. Has the man seen the cat who is going? tasks for pretraining are the language modeling task, where the objective is predict the next word in a string (e.g. Peters These examples play a key role in Chomsky’s influential et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019), and, in the case of BERT, argument from the poverty of the stimulus in support of this 1 the cloze task where the objective is predict the identity of a hypothesis. A version of the argument is given below: masked token anywhere in a string. Premise 1 Humans form grammatical hypotheses about their na- Despite containing no explicit information about grammat- tive language using either innate biases or data-driven learning. ical concepts, self-supervised tasks appear to teach neural Premise 2 Human language learners preferentially form struc- models significant knowledge of grammar and hierarchical tural hypotheses over equally simple linear hypotheses. syntax. These models can perform human-like acceptabil- Premise 3 The raw linguistic input
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Incorporating Prior Domain Knowledge Into Inductive Machine Learning Its Implementation in Contemporary Capital Markets
    University of Technology Sydney Incorporating Prior Domain Knowledge into Inductive Machine Learning Its implementation in contemporary capital markets A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computing Sciences by Ting Yu Sydney, Australia 2007 °c Copyright by Ting Yu 2007 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP/ORIGINALITY I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as a part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Candidate ii Table of Contents 1 Introduction :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.1 Overview of Incorporating Prior Domain Knowledge into Inductive Machine Learning . 2 1.2 Machine Learning and Prior Domain Knowledge . 3 1.2.1 What is Machine Learning? . 3 1.2.2 What is prior domain knowledge? . 6 1.3 Motivation: Why is Domain Knowledge needed to enhance Induc- tive Machine Learning? . 9 1.3.1 Open Areas . 12 1.4 Proposal and Structure of the Thesis . 13 2 Inductive Machine Learning and Prior Domain Knowledge :: 15 2.1 Overview of Inductive Machine Learning . 15 2.1.1 Consistency and Inductive Bias . 17 2.2 Statistical Learning Theory Overview . 22 2.2.1 Maximal Margin Hyperplane . 30 2.3 Linear Learning Machines and Kernel Methods . 31 2.3.1 Support Vector Machines .
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Machine Learning Models of Inductive Biases Combined with the Strengths of Program Synthesis (PBE) to Combat Implicit Biases of the Brain
    The Dangers of Algorithmic Autonomy: Efficient Machine Learning Models of Inductive Biases Combined With the Strengths of Program Synthesis (PBE) to Combat Implicit Biases of the Brain The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Halder, Sumona. 2020. The Dangers of Algorithmic Autonomy: Efficient Machine Learning Models of Inductive Biases Combined With the Strengths of Program Synthesis (PBE) to Combat Implicit Biases of the Brain. Bachelor's thesis, Harvard College. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37364669 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA The Dangers of Algorithmic Autonomy: Efficient Machine Learning Models of Inductive Biases combined with the Strengths of Program Synthesis (PBE) to Combat Implicit Biases of the Brain A Thesis Presented By Sumona Halder To The Department of Computer Science and Mind Brain Behavior In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Subject of Computer Science on the Mind Brain Behavior Track Harvard University April 10th, 2020 2 Table of Contents ABSTRACT 3 INTRODUCTION 5 WHAT IS IMPLICIT BIAS? 11 Introduction and study of the underlying cognitive and social mechanisms 11 Methods to combat Implicit Bias 16 The Importance of Reinforced Learning 19 INDUCTIVE BIAS and MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS 22 What is Inductive Bias and why is it useful? 22 How is Inductive Reasoning translated in Machine Learning Algorithms? 25 A Brief History of Inductive Bias Research 28 Current Roadblocks on Research with Inductive Biases in Machines 30 How Inductive Biases have been incorporated into Reinforced Learning 32 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases and Interpretability of Inductively Learnt Rules
    Introduction Problem ML Model Plausibility Additional Experiments Algo design Conclusions References Cognitive biases and interpretability of inductively learnt rules Tom´aˇsKliegr Department of Information and Knowledge Engineering University of Economics, Prague Some parts are based on joint papers with prof. J F¨urnkranz,prof. H Paulheim, prof. E Izquierdo, Dr. S Bahn´ıkand Dr. S Voj´ıˇr. This presentation covers work in progress. KEG Seminar, Nov 8, 2018 Introduction Problem ML Model Plausibility Additional Experiments Algo design Conclusions References Outline Introducing Inductive and Cognitive Bias AI and cognitive biases Problem Background Study of Plausibility of Machine Learning Models Methodology Setup Main Experiments More Experiments Semantic coherence vs diversity Linda experiments Summary of results Incorporating Selected Cognitive Bias to Classification Algorithm Overview of cognitive bias-inspired learning algorithms Motivation QCBA: Quantitative Classification based on Associations Experiments Conclusions Introduction Problem ML Model Plausibility Additional Experiments Algo design Conclusions References Research background I Around 2010, I set out to investigate how can we transfer cognitive biases (originally monotonicity constraint) into a machine learning algorithm. I It turned out that the relation between cognitive and inductive biases is virtually unstudied. I The most direct area to explore was effect of cognitive biases on perception of results of existing machine learning algorithms I ! we added studying the effect of cognitive biases on comprehensibility of machine learning models among research objectives I Transfer of selected cognitive bias to a machine learning algorithm remained secondary objective. Introduction Problem ML Model Plausibility Additional Experiments Algo design Conclusions References Goals 1) Study semantic and pragmatic comprehension of machine learning models.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Institute of Cognitive Science University of Osnabruck¨
    Data augmentation and image understanding PhD Thesis Institute of Cognitive Science University of Osnabruck¨ Alex Hern´andez-Garc´ıa Advisor: Prof. Peter Konig¨ July 2020 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 Foreword There are certainly many people I am grateful to for their support and love. I hope I show them and they feel my gratitude and love often enough. Instead of naming them here, I will make sure to thank them personally. I am also grateful to my PhD adviser and collaborators. I acknowledge their specific contributions at the beginning of each chapter. I wish to use this space for putting down in words some thoughts that have been recurrently present throughout my PhD and are especially strong now. The main reason why I have been able to write a PhD thesis is luck. Specifically, I have been very lucky to be a privileged person. In my opinion, we often overestimate our own effort, skills and hard work as the main factors for professional success. I would not have got here without my privileged position, in the first place. There are some obvious comparisons. To name a few: During the first months of my PhD, Syrians had undergone several years of war1 and citizens of Aleppo were suffering one of the most cruel sieges ever2. Hundreds of thousands were killed and millions had to flee their land and seek refuge. While I was visiting Palestine after a PhD-related workshop in Jerusalem, 17 Palestinian people were killed by the Israeli army in Gaza during the Land Day3 protests.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1911.10500V2 [Cs.LG] 23 Dec 2019 Level
    CAUSALITY FOR MACHINE LEARNING Bernhard Schölkopf Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Max-Planck-Ring 4, 72076 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] ABSTRACT Graphical causal inference as pioneered by Judea Pearl arose from research on artificial intelligence (AI), and for a long time had little connection to the field of machine learning. This article discusses where links have been and should be established, introducing key concepts along the way. It argues that the hard open problems of machine learning and AI are intrinsically related to causality, and explains how the field is beginning to understand them. 1 Introduction The machine learning community’s interest in causality has significantly increased in recent years. My understanding of causality has been shaped by Judea Pearl and a number of collaborators and colleagues, and much of it went into a book written with Dominik Janzing and Jonas Peters (Peters et al., 2017). I have spoken about this topic on various occasions,1 and some of it is in the process of entering the machine learning mainstream, in particular the view that causal modeling can lead to more invariant or robust models. There is excitement about developments at the interface of causality and machine learning, and the present article tries to put my thoughts into writing and draw a bigger picture. I hope it may not only be useful by discussing the importance of causal thinking for AI, but it can also serve as an introduction to some relevant concepts of graphical or structural causal models for a machine learning audience. In spite of all recent successes, if we compare what machine learning can do to what animals accomplish, we observe that the former is rather bad at some crucial feats where animals excel.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Structural Biases and Associated Data in Sensor-Rich Environments
    Description of Structural Biases and Associated Data in Sensor-Rich Environments Massinissa Hamidi and Aomar Osmani LIPN-UMR CNRS 7030, Univ. Sorbonne Paris Nord fhamidi,[email protected] Abstract In this article, we study activity recognition in the context of sensor-rich en- vironments. We address, in particular, the problem of inductive biases and their impact on the data collection process. To be effective and robust, activity recognition systems must take these biases into account at all levels and model them as hyperparameters by which they can be controlled. Whether it is a bias related to sensor measurement, transmission protocol, sensor deployment topology, heterogeneity, dynamicity, or stochastic effects, it is important to un- derstand their substantial impact on the quality of activity recognition models. This study highlights the need to separate the different types of biases arising in real situations so that machine learning models, e.g., adapt to the dynamicity of these environments, resist to sensor failures, and follow the evolution of the sensors topology. We propose a metamodeling process in which the sensor data is structured in layers. The lower layers encode the various biases linked to transformations, transmissions, and topology of data. The upper layers encode biases related to the data itself. This way, it becomes easier to model hyperpa- rameters and follow changes in the data acquisition infrastructure. We illustrate our approach on the SHL dataset which provides motion sensor data for a list of human activities collected under real conditions. The trade-offs exposed and the broader implications of our approach are discussed with alternative techniques to encode and incorporate knowledge into activity recognition models.
    [Show full text]
  • Inductive Bias
    pick up an exercise! ethics in NLP CS 585, Fall 2019 Introduction to Natural Language Processing http://people.cs.umass.edu/~miyyer/cs585/ Mohit Iyyer College of Information and Computer Sciences University of Massachusetts Amherst many slides from Yulia Tsvetkov stuff from last class • milestones due today! • are we going to cover “natural language understanding”? • what are we talking about today? • many NLP systems affect actual people • systems that interact with people (conversational agents) • perform some reasoning over people (e.g., recommendation systems, targeted ads) • make decisions about people’s lives (e.g., parole decisions, employment, immigration) • questions of ethics arise in all of these applications! why are we talking about it? • the explosion of data, in particular user-generated data (e.g., social media) • machine learning models that leverage huge amounts of this data to solve certain tasks Language and People The common misconception is that language has to do with words and what they mean. It doesn’t. It has to do with people and what they mean. Dan Jurafsky’s keynote talks at CVPR’17 and EMNLP’17 Learn to Assess AI Systems Adversarially ● Who could benefit from such a technology? ● Who can be harmed by such a technology? ● Representativeness of training data ● Could sharing this data have major effect on people’s lives? ● What are confounding variables and corner cases to control for? ● Does the system optimize for the “right” objective? ● Could prediction errors have major effect on people’s lives? let’s start
    [Show full text]
  • Jacob Andreas / MIT 6.806-6.864 / Spring 2020 an Alien Broadcast
    (Advanced) Natural Language Processing Jacob Andreas / MIT 6.806-6.864 / Spring 2020 An alien broadcast f84hh4zl8da4dzwrzo40hizeb3zm8bbz9e8dzj74z1e0h3z0iz0zded4n42kj8l4z38h42jehzdels9z chzl8da4dz8iz2708hc0dze5z4bi4l84hzdlzj74z3kj27zfk1b8i78d6z6hekfhk3ebf7z06d4mzvvz o40hizeb3z0d3z5ehc4hz2708hc0dze5z2edieb830j43z6eb3z584b3izfb2m0izd0c43z0zded4n42 kj8l4z38h42jehze5zj78iz1h8j8i7z8d3kijh80bz2ed6bec4h0j4z05ehcze5z0i14ijeized24zki 43zjezc0a4za4djz2860h4jj4z58bj4hiz70iz20ki43z0z7867f4h24dj064ze5z20d24hz340j7iz0 ced6z0z6hekfze5zmeha4hiz4nfei43zjez8jzceh4zj70dztqo40hiz06ezh4i40h274hizh4fehj43 zj74z0i14ijeiz5814hz2he283eb8j4z8izkdkik0bboh4i8b84djzed24z8jz4dj4hizj74zbkd6izm 8j7z4l4dz1h845z4nfeikh4izjez8jz20ki8d6iocfjecizj70jzi7emzkfz342034izb0j4hzh4i40h Predictability f84hh4zl8da4dzwrzo40hizeb3zm8bbz9e8dzj74z1e0h3z0iz0zded4n42kj8l4z38h42jehzdels9z chzl8da4dz8iz2708hc0dze5z4bi4l84hzdlzj74z3kj27zfk1b8i78d6z6hekfhk3ebf7z06d4mzvvz o40hizeb3z0d3z5ehc4hz2708hc0dze5z2edieb830j43z6eb3z584b3izfb2m0izd0c43z0zded4n42 p(Xt ∣ X1:t−1) Can I guess what character is coming next? Predictability f84hh4zl8da4dzwrzo40hizeb3zm8bbz9e8dzj74z1e0h3z0iz0zded4n42kj8l4z38h42jehzdels9z chzl8da4dz8iz2708hc0dze5z4bi4l84hzdlzj74z3kj27zfk1b8i78d6z6hekfhk3ebf7z06d4mzvvz o40hizeb3z0d3z5ehc4hz2708hc0dze5z2edieb830j43z6eb3z584b3izfb2m0izd0c43z0zded4n42 p(� ∣ �����) Can I guess what character is coming next? Predictability f84hh4zl8da4dzwrzo40hizeb3zm8bbz9e8dzj74z1e0h3z0iz0zded4n42kj8l4z38h42jehzdels9z chzl8da4dz8iz2708hc0dze5z4bi4l84hzdlzj74z3kj27zfk1b8i78d6z6hekfhk3ebf7z06d4mzvvz o40hizeb3z0d3z5ehc4hz2708hc0dze5z2edieb830j43z6eb3z584b3izfb2m0izd0c43z0zded4n42
    [Show full text]
  • The Induction Problem: a Machine Learning Vindication Argument
    The induction problem: a machine learning vindication argument Gianluca Bontempi Machine Learning Group Computer Science Department, Faculty of Sciences ULB, Universit´eLibre de Bruxelles, Belgium mlg.ulb.ac.be Abstract. The problem of induction is a central problem in philoso- phy of science and concerns whether it is sound or not to extract laws from observational data. Nowadays, this issue is more relevant than ever given the pervasive and growing role of the data discovery process in all sciences. If on one hand induction is routinely employed by automatic machine learning techniques, on the other most of the philosophical work criticises induction as if an alternative could exist. But is there indeed a reliable alternative to induction? Is it possible to discover or predict something in a non inductive manner? This paper formalises the question on the basis of statistical notions (bias, variance, mean squared error) borrowed from estimation theory and statistical machine learning. The result is a justification of induc- tion as rational behaviour. In a decision-making process a behaviour is rational if it is based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility. If we measure utility in a prediction context in terms of expected accuracy, it follows that induction is the rational way of conduct. 1 Introduction The process of extraction of scientific laws from observational data has interested the philosophy of science during the last two centuries. Though not definitely settled, the debate is more relevant than ever given the pervasive and growing role of data discovery in all sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 1
    Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2016 Las Vegas, NV Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 DNA Does Not Advocate Gold standard of forensic evidence However, ... there may be problems ... with how the DNA was ... interpreted, such as when there are mixed samples Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 1 Case context impact With context Without context Include 2 1 Exclude 12 Inconclusive 4 Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 2 DNA mixture Genotype 1 Genotype 2 Data 10, 12 11, 12 10 11 12 (oversimplified cartoon diagram) Interpret #1: separate Data Genotype 1 Genotype 2 10, 10 @ 10% 10, 10 @ 10% Separate 10, 11 @ 20% 10, 11 @ 10% 10, 12 @ 40% 10, 12 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 40% 10 11 12 12, 12 @ 10% 12, 12 @ 20% Unmix the mixture Interpret #2: compare Data Genotype 2 10, 10 @ 10% 10, 11 @ 10% 10, 12 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 40% 10 11 12 12, 12 @ 20% Compare with 11,12 Prob{match} 40% Match statistic = = = 10 Prob{coincidence} 4% Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 3 Cognitive bias Illogical thinking affects decisions • Anchoring – rely on first information • Apophenia – perceive meaningful patterns • Attribution bias – find causal explanations • Confirmation bias – interpretation confirms belief • Framing – social construction of reality • Halo effect – sentiments affect evaluation • Oversimplification – simplicity trumps accuracy • Self-serving bias – distort to maintain self-esteem Contextual bias Background information affects decisions
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Unbiased Artificial Intelligence: Literary Review of Debiasing Techniques
    TOWARDS UNBIASED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LITERARY REVIEW OF DEBIASING TECHNIQUES Smulders, C.O., Ghebreab, S. Abstract Historical bias has been feeding into the algorithmic bias inherent in artificial intelligence systems. When considering negative social bias, this process becomes indirectly discriminatory and leads to faulty artificial intelligence systems. This problem has only recently been highlighted as a possible way in which bias can propagate and entrench itself. The current research attempt to work toward a debiasing solution which can be used to correct for negative bias in artificial intelligence. A literary analysis was done on technical debiasing solutions, and actors which effect their implementation. A recommendation for the creation of a debiasing open source platform is made, in which several technical proposed solutions should be implemented. This allows for a low-cost way for companies to use debiasing tools in their application of artificial intelligence systems. Furthermore, development would be sped up, taking proposed solutions out of the highly restricted academic field and into the world of external application. A final note is made on the feasibility of elimination of bias in artificial intelligence, as well as society at large 1: Introduction “Artificial intelligence presents a cultural shift as much as a technical one. This is similar to technological inflection points of the past, such as the introduction of the printing press or the railways” (Nonnecke, Prabhakar, Brown, & Crittenden, 2017). The invention of the printing press was the cause of much social progress: the spread of intellectual property, and the increase in social mobility being just two facets of this breakthrough. It allowed for a shake-up of the vestiges of absolute power derived from medieval society, and reduced age-old economic and social biases (Dittmar, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Bias in Machine Learning - What Is It Good For?
    Bias in Machine Learning - What is it Good for? Thomas Hellstrom¨ and Virginia Dignum and Suna Bensch 1,2 Abstract. In public media as well as in scientific publications, the is related to several of the AI-HLEG recommendations for building term bias is used in conjunction with machine learning in many dif- Human-Centered AI systems. ferent contexts, and with many different meanings. This paper pro- Machine learning is a wide research field with several distinct ap- poses a taxonomy of these different meanings, terminology, and def- proaches. In this paper we focus on inductive learning, which is a initions by surveying the, primarily scientific, literature on machine corner stone in machine learning. Even with this specific focus, the learning. In some cases, we suggest extensions and modifications to amount of relevant research is vast, and the aim of the survey is not promote a clear terminology and completeness. The survey is fol- to provide an overview of all published work, but rather to cover the lowed by an analysis and discussion on how different types of biases wide range of different usages of the term bias. are connected and depend on each other. We conclude that there is This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly summarizes a complex relation between bias occurring in the machine learning related earlier work. In Section 3 we survey various sources of bias, pipeline that leads to a model, and the eventual bias of the model as it appears in the different steps in the machine learning process. (which is typically related to social discrimination).
    [Show full text]