Algorithmic fairness, the research field of making machine learning (ML) algorithms fair, is an established area in ML. As ML technologies expand their application domains, including ones with high societal impact, it becomes essential to take fairness into consideration during the building of ML systems. Yet, despite its wide range of socially sensitive applications, most work treats the issue of algorithmic bias as an intrinsic property of supervised learning, i.e., the class label is given as a precondition. Unlike prior studies in fairness, we propose an individual fairness measure and a corresponding algorithm that deal with the challenges of uncertainty arising from censorship in class labels, while enforcing similar individuals to be treated similarly from a ranking perspective, free of the Lipschitz condition in the conventional individual fairness definition. We argue that this perspective represents a more realistic model of fairness research for real-world application deployment and show how learning with such a relaxed precondition draws new insights that better explains algorithmic fairness. We conducted experiments on four real-world datasets to evaluate our proposed method compared to other fairness models, demonstrating its superiority in minimizing discrimination while maintaining predictive performance with uncertainty present.

The quality of training datasets for deep neural networks is a key factor contributing to the accuracy of resulting models. This effect is amplified in difficult tasks such as object detection. Dealing with errors in datasets is often limited to accepting that some fraction of examples are incorrect, estimating their confidence, and either assigning appropriate weights or ignoring uncertain ones during training. In this work, we propose a different approach. We introduce the Confident Learning for Object Detection (CLOD) algorithm for assessing the quality of each label in object detection datasets, identifying missing, spurious, mislabeled, and mislocated bounding boxes and suggesting corrections. By focusing on finding incorrect examples in the training datasets, we can eliminate them at the root. Suspicious bounding boxes can be reviewed to improve the quality of the dataset, leading to better models without further complicating their already complex architectures. The proposed method is able to point out nearly 80% of artificially disturbed bounding boxes with a false positive rate below 0.1. Cleaning the datasets by applying the most confident automatic suggestions improved mAP scores by 16% to 46%, depending on the dataset, without any modifications to the network architectures. This approach shows promising potential in rectifying state-of-the-art object detection datasets.

Text classification is an important topic in the field of natural language processing. It has been preliminarily applied in information retrieval, digital library, automatic abstracting, text filtering, word semantic discrimination and many other fields. The aim of this research is to use a variety of algorithms to test the ability to identify offensive posts and evaluate their performance against a variety of assessment methods. The motivation for this project is to reduce the harm of these languages to human censors by automating the screening of offending posts. The field is a new one, and despite much interest in the past two years, there has been no focus on the object of the offence. Through the experiment of this project, it should inspire future research on identification methods as well as identification content.

We consider the critical issue of false negatives in Vision-Language Pre-training (VLP), a challenge that arises from the inherent many-to-many correspondence of image-text pairs in large-scale web-crawled datasets. The presence of false negatives can impede achieving optimal performance and even lead to learning failures. To address this challenge, we propose a method called COSMO (COnverting and SMOoothing false negatives) that manages the false negative issues, especially powerful in hard negative sampling. Building upon the recently developed GRouped mIni-baTch sampling (GRIT) strategy, our approach consists of two pivotal components: 1) an efficient connection mining process that identifies and converts false negatives into positives, and 2) label smoothing for the image-text contrastive loss (ITC). Our comprehensive experiments verify the effectiveness of COSMO across multiple downstream tasks, emphasizing the crucial role of addressing false negatives in VLP, potentially even surpassing the importance of addressing false positives. In addition, the compatibility of COSMO with the recent BLIP-family model is also demonstrated.

One of the motivations for explainable AI is to allow humans to make better and more informed decisions regarding the use and deployment of AI models. But careful evaluations are needed to assess whether this expectation has been fulfilled. Current evaluations mainly focus on algorithmic properties of explanations, and those that involve human subjects often employ subjective questions to test human's perception of explanation usefulness, without being grounded in objective metrics and measurements. In this work, we evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. We conduct a mixed-methods user study involving image data to evaluate saliency maps generated by SmoothGrad, GradCAM, and an oracle explanation on two tasks: model selection and counterfactual simulation. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on these tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps, even the synthetic oracle explanation designed to be simple to understand and highly indicative of the answer. Nonetheless, explanations did help users more accurately describe the models. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.

AI-generated media has become a threat to our digital society as we know it. These forgeries can be created automatically and on a large scale based on publicly available technology. Recognizing this challenge, academics and practitioners have proposed a multitude of automatic detection strategies to detect such artificial media. However, in contrast to these technical advances, the human perception of generated media has not been thoroughly studied yet. In this paper, we aim at closing this research gap. We perform the first comprehensive survey into people's ability to detect generated media, spanning three countries (USA, Germany, and China) with 3,002 participants across audio, image, and text media. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art forgeries are almost indistinguishable from "real" media, with the majority of participants simply guessing when asked to rate them as human- or machine-generated. In addition, AI-generated media receive is voted more human like across all media types and all countries. To further understand which factors influence people's ability to detect generated media, we include personal variables, chosen based on a literature review in the domains of deepfake and fake news research. In a regression analysis, we found that generalized trust, cognitive reflection, and self-reported familiarity with deepfakes significantly influence participant's decision across all media categories.

This paper focuses on parameter selection issues of kernel ridge regression (KRR). Due to special spectral properties of KRR, we find that delicate subdivision of the parameter interval shrinks the difference between two successive KRR estimates. Based on this observation, we develop an early-stopping type parameter selection strategy for KRR according to the so-called Lepskii-type principle. Theoretical verifications are presented in the framework of learning theory to show that KRR equipped with the proposed parameter selection strategy succeeds in achieving optimal learning rates and adapts to different norms, providing a new record of parameter selection for kernel methods.

In foreign exchange (FX), as in other asset classes, broker-client relationships are ubiquitous. The broker streams bid and ask quotes to her clients and the clients decide when to trade on these quotes, so the broker bears the risk of adverse selection when trading with better informed clients. These risks are borne by both liquidity providers who stream quotes to individual parties and by market participants who provide liquidity in the books of electronic exchanges. However, in contrast to electronic order books in which trading is anonymous for all participants (e.g., in Nasdaq, LSE, Euronext), in broker-client relationships the broker knows which client executed the order. This privileged information can be used by the broker to classify flow, i.e., toxic or benign, and to devise strategies that mitigate adverse selection costs. In the literature, models generally classify traders as informed or uninformed; see e.g., Bagehot (1971), Copeland and Galai (1983), Grossman and Stiglitz (1980), Amihud and Mendelson (1980), Kyle (1989), Kyle (1985), and Glosten and Milgrom (1985). In equity markets, many studies focus on informed flow (i.e., asymmetry of information) across various traded stocks, see e.g., Easley et al. (1996) who study the probability of informed trading at the stock level, while our study focuses on We thank Andrew Stewart, Alistair Sturgiss, Fayçal Drissi, Patrick Chang, Álvaro Arroyo, Sergio Calvo Ordoñez, and participants at the Oxford Victoria Seminar for comments. ChatGPT suggested the name PULSE for our algorithm.

Automated classifiers (ACs), often built via supervised machine learning (SML), can categorize large, statistically powerful samples of data ranging from text to images and video, and have become widely popular measurement devices in communication science and related fields. Despite this popularity, even highly accurate classifiers make errors that cause misclassification bias and misleading results in downstream analyses-unless such analyses account for these errors. As we show in a systematic literature review of SML applications, communication scholars largely ignore misclassification bias. In principle, existing statistical methods can use "gold standard" validation data, such as that created by human annotators, to correct misclassification bias and produce consistent estimates. We introduce and test such methods, including a new method we design and implement in the R package misclassificationmodels, via Monte Carlo simulations designed to reveal each method's limitations, which we also release. Based on our results, we recommend our new error correction method as it is versatile and efficient. In sum, automated classifiers, even those below common accuracy standards or making systematic misclassifications, can be useful for measurement with careful study design and appropriate error correction methods.

In this paper, we consider a theoretical model for injecting data bias, namely, under-representation and label bias (Blum & Stangl, 2019). We empirically study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Through extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets (e.g., Adult, German Credit, Bank Marketing, COMPAS), we empirically audit pre-, in-, and post-processing fair classifiers from standard fairness toolkits for their fairness and accuracy by injecting varying amounts of under-representation and label bias in their training data (but not the test data). Our main observations are: 1. The fairness and accuracy of many standard fair classifiers degrade severely as the bias injected in their training data increases, 2. A simple logistic regression model trained on the right data can often outperform, in both accuracy and fairness, most fair classifiers trained on biased training data, and 3. A few, simple fairness techniques (e.g., reweighing, exponentiated gradients) seem to offer stable accuracy and fairness guarantees even when their training data is injected with under-representation and label bias. Our experiments also show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.