论文检索

输入标题、作者或关键词,从 4 篇学术成果中精准定位

会议来源 全部会议

机器学习与综合 AI

自然语言处理

计算机视觉

数据挖掘与 Web

多媒体与图形学

未选择时检索全部会议
支持跨会议组合检索,PDF 均跳转至官方来源
4篇论文匹配“Theory/Social Aspects”
第 1 / 1 页

Theory/Social Aspects

Nicholas Rittler, Kamalika Chaudhuri

Inspired by the problem of improving classification accuracy on rare or hard subsets of a population, there has been recent interest in models of learning where the goal is to generalize to a collection of distributions, each representing a ``group''. We consider a variant of this problem from the perspective of active learning, where the learner is endowed with the power to decide which examples are labeled from each distribution in the collection, and the goal is to minimize the number of label queries while maintaining PAC-learning guarantees. Our main challenge is that standard active learning techniques such as disagreement-based active learning do not directly apply to the multi-group learning objective. We modify existing algorithms to provide a consistent active learning algorithm for an agnostic formulation of multi-group learning, which given a collection of $G$ distributions and a hypothesis class $\mathcal{H}$ with VC-dimension $d$, outputs an $\epsilon$-optimal hypothesis using $\tilde{O}\left( (\nu^2/\epsilon^2) G d \theta_{\mathcal{G}}^2 \log^2(1/\epsilon) + G\log(1/\epsilon)/\epsilon^2 \right)$ label queries, where $\theta_{\mathcal{G}}$ is the worst-case disagreement coefficient over the collection. Roughly speaking, this guarantee improves upon the label complexity of standard multi-group learning in regimes where disagreement-based active learning algorithms may be expected to succeed, and the number of groups is not too large. We also consider the special case where each distribution in the collection is individually realizable with respect to $\mathcal{H}$, and demonstrate $\tilde{O}\left( G d \theta_{\mathcal{G}} \log(1/\epsilon) \right)$ label queries are sufficient for learning in this case. We further give an approximation result for the full agnostic case inspired by the group realizable strategy.

Theory/Social Aspects

Yanbang Wang, Jon Kleinberg

In an online social network, link recommendations are a way for users to discover relevant links to people they may know, thereby potentially increasing their engagement on the platform. However, the addition of links to a social network can also have an effect on the level of conflict in the network --- expressed in terms of polarization and disagreement. To date, however, we have very little understanding of how these two implications of link formation relate to each other: are the goals of high relevance and conflict reduction aligned, or are the links that users are most likely to accept fundamentally different from the ones with the greatest potential for reducing conflict? Here we provide the first analysis of this question, using the recently popular Friedkin-Johnsen model of opinion dynamics. We first present a surprising result on how link additions shift the level of opinion conflict, followed by explanation work that relates the amount of shift to structural features of the added links. We then characterize the gap in conflict reduction between the set of links achieving the largest reduction and the set of links achieving the highest relevance. The gap is measured on real-world data, based on instantiations of relevance defined by 13 link recommendation algorithms. We find that some, but not all, of the more accurate algorithms actually lead to better reduction of conflict. Our work suggests that social links recommended for increasing user engagement may not be as conflict-provoking as people might have thought.

Theory/Social Aspects

Yash Gupta, Runtian Zhai, Arun Suggala, Pradeep Ravikumar

Several recent works have studied the societal effects of AI; these include issues such as fairness, robustness, and safety. In many of these objectives, a learner seeks to minimize its worst-case loss over a set of predefined distributions (known as uncertainty sets), with usual examples being perturbed versions of the empirical distribution. In other words, the aforementioned problems can be written as min-max problems over these uncertainty sets. In this work, we provide a general framework for studying these problems, which we refer to as Responsible AI (RAI) games. We provide two classes of algorithms for solving these games: (a) game-play based algorithms, and (b) greedy stagewise estimation algorithms. The former class is motivated by online learning and game theory, whereas the latter class is motivated by the classical statistical literature on boosting, and regression. We empirically demonstrate the applicability and competitive performance of our techniques for solving several RAI problems, particularly around subpopulation shift.

Theory/Social Aspects

Fan Yao, Chuanhao Li, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, Yiming Liao, Yan Zhu, Qifan Wang, Hongning Wang, Haifeng Xu

The past decade has witnessed the flourishing of a new profession as media content creators, who rely on revenue streams from online content recommendation platforms. The reward mechanism employed by these platforms creates a competitive environment among creators which affects their production choices and, consequently, content distribution and system welfare. It is thus crucial to design the platform's reward mechanism in order to steer the creators' competition towards a desirable welfare outcome in the long run. This work makes two major contributions in this regard: first, we uncover a fundamental limit about a class of widely adopted mechanisms, coined \emph{Merit-based Monotone Mechanisms}, by showing that they inevitably lead to a constant fraction loss of the optimal welfare. To circumvent this limitation, we introduce \emph{Backward Rewarding Mechanisms} (BRMs) and show that the competition game resultant from BRMs possesses a potential game structure. BRMs thus naturally induce strategic creators' collective behaviors towards optimizing the potential function, which can be designed to match any given welfare metric. In addition, the class of BRM can be parameterized so that it allows the platform to directly optimize welfare within the feasible mechanism space even when the welfare metric is not explicitly defined.