Alert button
Picture for Kathleen A. Creel

Kathleen A. Creel

Alert button

Ecosystem-level Analysis of Deployed Machine Learning Reveals Homogeneous Outcomes

Jul 12, 2023
Connor Toups, Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A. Creel, Sarah H. Bana, Dan Jurafsky, Percy Liang

Machine learning is traditionally studied at the model level: researchers measure and improve the accuracy, robustness, bias, efficiency, and other dimensions of specific models. In practice, the societal impact of machine learning is determined by the surrounding context of machine learning deployments. To capture this, we introduce ecosystem-level analysis: rather than analyzing a single model, we consider the collection of models that are deployed in a given context. For example, ecosystem-level analysis in hiring recognizes that a job candidate's outcomes are not only determined by a single hiring algorithm or firm but instead by the collective decisions of all the firms they applied to. Across three modalities (text, images, speech) and 11 datasets, we establish a clear trend: deployed machine learning is prone to systemic failure, meaning some users are exclusively misclassified by all models available. Even when individual models improve at the population level over time, we find these improvements rarely reduce the prevalence of systemic failure. Instead, the benefits of these improvements predominantly accrue to individuals who are already correctly classified by other models. In light of these trends, we consider medical imaging for dermatology where the costs of systemic failure are especially high. While traditional analyses reveal racial performance disparities for both models and humans, ecosystem-level analysis reveals new forms of racial disparity in model predictions that do not present in human predictions. These examples demonstrate ecosystem-level analysis has unique strengths for characterizing the societal impact of machine learning.

* All code is available at https://github.com/rishibommasani/EcosystemLevelAnalysis 
Viaarxiv icon

Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models

Mar 28, 2023
Rishi Bommasani, Dilara Soylu, Thomas I. Liao, Kathleen A. Creel, Percy Liang

Figure 1 for Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models
Figure 2 for Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models
Figure 3 for Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models
Figure 4 for Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models

Foundation models (e.g. ChatGPT, StableDiffusion) pervasively influence society, warranting immediate social attention. While the models themselves garner much attention, to accurately characterize their impact, we must consider the broader sociotechnical ecosystem. We propose Ecosystem Graphs as a documentation framework to transparently centralize knowledge of this ecosystem. Ecosystem Graphs is composed of assets (datasets, models, applications) linked together by dependencies that indicate technical (e.g. how Bing relies on GPT-4) and social (e.g. how Microsoft relies on OpenAI) relationships. To supplement the graph structure, each asset is further enriched with fine-grained metadata (e.g. the license or training emissions). We document the ecosystem extensively at https://crfm.stanford.edu/ecosystem-graphs/. As of March 16, 2023, we annotate 262 assets (64 datasets, 128 models, 70 applications) from 63 organizations linked by 356 dependencies. We show Ecosystem Graphs functions as a powerful abstraction and interface for achieving the minimum transparency required to address myriad use cases. Therefore, we envision Ecosystem Graphs will be a community-maintained resource that provides value to stakeholders spanning AI researchers, industry professionals, social scientists, auditors and policymakers.

* Authored by the Center for Research on Foundation Models (CRFM) at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). Ecosystem Graphs available at https://crfm.stanford.edu/ecosystem-graphs/ 
Viaarxiv icon

Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?

Nov 25, 2022
Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A. Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, Percy Liang

Figure 1 for Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?
Figure 2 for Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?
Figure 3 for Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?
Figure 4 for Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?

As the scope of machine learning broadens, we observe a recurring theme of algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components (e.g. training data), are deployed by multiple decision-makers. While sharing offers clear advantages (e.g. amortizing costs), does it bear risks? We introduce and formalize one such risk, outcome homogenization: the extent to which particular individuals or groups experience negative outcomes from all decision-makers. If the same individuals or groups exclusively experience undesirable outcomes, this may institutionalize systemic exclusion and reinscribe social hierarchy. To relate algorithmic monoculture and outcome homogenization, we propose the component-sharing hypothesis: if decision-makers share components like training data or specific models, then they will produce more homogeneous outcomes. We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that sharing training data reliably exacerbates homogenization, with individual-level effects generally exceeding group-level effects. Further, given the dominant paradigm in AI of foundation models, i.e. models that can be adapted for myriad downstream tasks, we test whether model sharing homogenizes outcomes across tasks. We observe mixed results: we find that for both vision and language settings, the specific methods for adapting a foundation model significantly influence the degree of outcome homogenization. We conclude with philosophical analyses of and societal challenges for outcome homogenization, with an eye towards implications for deployed machine learning systems.

* Published at NeurIPS 2022, presented at EAAMO 2022 
Viaarxiv icon