FairComp: Workshop on Fairness and Robustness in Machine Learning for Ubiquitous Computing

How can we ensure that Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) research outcomes are both ethical and fair? While fairness in machine learning (ML) has gained traction in recent years, fairness in UbiComp remains unexplored. This workshop aims to discuss fairness in UbiComp research and its social, technical, and legal implications. From a social perspective, we will examine the relationship between fairness and UbiComp research and identify pathways to ensure that ubiquitous technologies do not cause harm or infringe on individual rights. From a technical perspective, we will initiate a discussion on data practices to develop bias mitigation approaches tailored to UbiComp research. From a legal perspective, we will examine how new policies shape our community's work and future research. We aim to foster a vibrant community centered around the topic of responsible UbiComp, while also charting a clear path for future research endeavours in this field.

DDoD: Dual Denial of Decision Attacks on Human-AI Teams

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have been increasingly used to make decision-making processes faster, more accurate, and more efficient. However, such systems are also at constant risk of being attacked. While the majority of attacks targeting AI-based applications aim to manipulate classifiers or training data and alter the output of an AI model, recently proposed Sponge Attacks against AI models aim to impede the classifier's execution by consuming substantial resources. In this work, we propose \textit{Dual Denial of Decision (DDoD) attacks against collaborative Human-AI teams}. We discuss how such attacks aim to deplete \textit{both computational and human} resources, and significantly impair decision-making capabilities. We describe DDoD on human and computational resources and present potential risk scenarios in a series of exemplary domains.

Quantifying Synthesis and Fusion and their Impact on Machine Translation

Theoretical work in morphological typology offers the possibility of measuring morphological diversity on a continuous scale. However, literature in Natural Language Processing (NLP) typically labels a whole language with a strict type of morphology, e.g. fusional or agglutinative. In this work, we propose to reduce the rigidity of such claims, by quantifying morphological typology at the word and segment level. We consider Payne (2017)'s approach to classify morphology using two indices: synthesis (e.g. analytic to polysynthetic) and fusion (agglutinative to fusional). For computing synthesis, we test unsupervised and supervised morphological segmentation methods for English, German and Turkish, whereas for fusion, we propose a semi-automatic method using Spanish as a case study. Then, we analyse the relationship between machine translation quality and the degree of synthesis and fusion at word (nouns and verbs for English-Turkish, and verbs in English-Spanish) and segment level (previous language pairs plus English-German in both directions). We complement the word-level analysis with human evaluation, and overall, we observe a consistent impact of both indexes on machine translation quality.