Reproducibility in Machine Learning-Driven Research

Research is facing a reproducibility crisis, in which the results and findings of many studies are difficult or even impossible to reproduce. This is also the case in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) research. Often, this is the case due to unpublished data and/or source-code, and due to sensitivity to ML training conditions. Although different solutions to address this issue are discussed in the research community such as using ML platforms, the level of reproducibility in ML-driven research is not increasing substantially. Therefore, in this mini survey, we review the literature on reproducibility in ML-driven research with three main aims: (i) reflect on the current situation of ML reproducibility in various research fields, (ii) identify reproducibility issues and barriers that exist in these research fields applying ML, and (iii) identify potential drivers such as tools, practices, and interventions that support ML reproducibility. With this, we hope to contribute to decisions on the viability of different solutions for supporting ML reproducibility.

A conceptual model for leaving the data-centric approach in machine learning

For a long time, machine learning (ML) has been seen as the abstract problem of learning relationships from data independent of the surrounding settings. This has recently been challenged, and methods have been proposed to include external constraints in the machine learning models. These methods usually come from application-specific fields, such as de-biasing algorithms in the field of fairness in ML or physical constraints in the fields of physics and engineering. In this paper, we present and discuss a conceptual high-level model that unifies these approaches in a common language. We hope that this will enable and foster exchange between the different fields and their different methods for including external constraints into ML models, and thus leaving purely data-centric approaches.

Long-term dynamics of fairness: understanding the impact of data-driven targeted help on job seekers

The use of data-driven decision support by public agencies is becoming more widespread and already influences the allocation of public resources. This raises ethical concerns, as it has adversely affected minorities and historically discriminated groups. In this paper, we use an approach that combines statistics and machine learning with dynamical modeling to assess long-term fairness effects of labor market interventions. Specifically, we develop and use a model to investigate the impact of decisions caused by a public employment authority that selectively supports job-seekers through targeted help. The selection of who receives what help is based on a data-driven intervention model that estimates an individual's chances of finding a job in a timely manner and is based on data that describes a population in which skills relevant to the labor market are unevenly distributed between two groups (e.g., males and females). The intervention model has incomplete access to the individual's actual skills and can augment this with knowledge of the individual's group affiliation, thus using a protected attribute to increase predictive accuracy. We assess this intervention model's dynamics -- especially fairness-related issues and trade-offs between different fairness goals -- over time and compare it to an intervention model that does not use group affiliation as a predictive feature. We conclude that in order to quantify the trade-off correctly and to assess the long-term fairness effects of such a system in the real-world, careful modeling of the surrounding labor market is indispensable.

Societal Biases in Retrieved Contents: Measurement Framework and Adversarial Mitigation for BERT Rankers

Societal biases resonate in the retrieved contents of information retrieval (IR) systems, resulting in reinforcing existing stereotypes. Approaching this issue requires established measures of fairness in respect to the representation of various social groups in retrieval results, as well as methods to mitigate such biases, particularly in the light of the advances in deep ranking models. In this work, we first provide a novel framework to measure the fairness in the retrieved text contents of ranking models. Introducing a ranker-agnostic measurement, the framework also enables the disentanglement of the effect on fairness of collection from that of rankers. To mitigate these biases, we propose AdvBert, a ranking model achieved by adapting adversarial bias mitigation for IR, which jointly learns to predict relevance and remove protected attributes. We conduct experiments on two passage retrieval collections (MSMARCO Passage Re-ranking and TREC Deep Learning 2019 Passage Re-ranking), which we extend by fairness annotations of a selected subset of queries regarding gender attributes. Our results on the MSMARCO benchmark show that, (1) all ranking models are less fair in comparison with ranker-agnostic baselines, and (2) the fairness of Bert rankers significantly improves when using the proposed AdvBert models. Lastly, we investigate the trade-off between fairness and utility, showing that we can maintain the significant improvements in fairness without any significant loss in utility.