A Framework to Assess (Dis)agreement Among Diverse Rater Groups

Recent advancements in conversational AI have created an urgent need for safety guardrails that prevent users from being exposed to offensive and dangerous content. Much of this work relies on human ratings and feedback, but does not account for the fact that perceptions of offense and safety are inherently subjective and that there may be systematic disagreements between raters that align with their socio-demographic identities. Instead, current machine learning approaches largely ignore rater subjectivity and use gold standards that obscure disagreements (e.g., through majority voting). In order to better understand the socio-cultural leanings of such tasks, we propose a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure systematic diversity in perspectives among different rater subgroups. We then demonstrate its utility by applying this framework to a dataset of human-chatbot conversations rated by a demographically diverse pool of raters. Our analysis reveals specific rater groups that have more diverse perspectives than the rest, and informs demographic axes that are crucial to consider for safety annotations.

Neural Machine Translation for Extremely Low-Resource African Languages: A Case Study on Bambara

Low-resource languages present unique challenges to (neural) machine translation. We discuss the case of Bambara, a Mande language for which training data is scarce and requires significant amounts of pre-processing. More than the linguistic situation of Bambara itself, the socio-cultural context within which Bambara speakers live poses challenges for automated processing of this language. In this paper, we present the first parallel data set for machine translation of Bambara into and from English and French and the first benchmark results on machine translation to and from Bambara. We discuss challenges in working with low-resource languages and propose strategies to cope with data scarcity in low-resource machine translation (MT).

A $O(\log m)$, deterministic, polynomial-time computable approximation of Lewis Carroll's scoring rule

We provide deterministic, polynomial-time computable voting rules that approximate Dodgson's and (the ``minimization version'' of) Young's scoring rules to within a logarithmic factor. Our approximation of Dodgson's rule is tight up to a constant factor, as Dodgson's rule is $\NP$-hard to approximate to within some logarithmic factor. The ``maximization version'' of Young's rule is known to be $\NP$-hard to approximate by any constant factor. Both approximations are simple, and natural as rules in their own right: Given a candidate we wish to score, we can regard either its Dodgson or Young score as the edit distance between a given set of voter preferences and one in which the candidate to be scored is the Condorcet winner. (The difference between the two scoring rules is the type of edits allowed.) We regard the marginal cost of a sequence of edits to be the number of edits divided by the number of reductions (in the candidate's deficit against any of its opponents in the pairwise race against that opponent) that the edits yield. Over a series of rounds, our scoring rules greedily choose a sequence of edits that modify exactly one voter's preferences and whose marginal cost is no greater than any other such single-vote-modifying sequence.