2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2101.11974
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disembodied Machine Learning: On the Illusion of Objectivity in NLP

Abstract: Machine Learning seeks to identify and encode bodies of knowledge within provided datasets. However, data encodes subjective content, which determines the possible outcomes of the models trained on it. Because such subjectivity enables marginalisation of parts of society, it is termed (social) 'bias' and sought to be removed. In this paper, we contextualise this discourse of bias in the ML community against the subjective choices in the development process. Through a consideration of how choices in data and mo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding objectivity, neither the LENA ® algorithm nor any other algorithm can be claimed to be objective. Biases arise throughout the various stages of algorithm development, including during data collection, manual annotation, and algorithm design -see Waseem et al (2021) for a discussion on the illusion of objectivity in ML algorithms. Acknowledging the limitations of algorithms, particularly machine learning algorithms, is crucial if one wants to start documenting biases and building more inclusive algorithms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding objectivity, neither the LENA ® algorithm nor any other algorithm can be claimed to be objective. Biases arise throughout the various stages of algorithm development, including during data collection, manual annotation, and algorithm design -see Waseem et al (2021) for a discussion on the illusion of objectivity in ML algorithms. Acknowledging the limitations of algorithms, particularly machine learning algorithms, is crucial if one wants to start documenting biases and building more inclusive algorithms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having access to noisy sentiment-based stance data in the same languages helps, but transferring knowledge from a resource-rich language (e.g., English) from the same task (or set of task definitions) is even more beneficial, in contrast to the data's (see Section 4.1) and label's language (see Appendix C.5). Moreover, when using noisy labels from an external model, there is always a risk of introducing additional bias due to the training data and to discrepancies in the task definition (Waseem et al 2021;Bender et al 2021). We observed this for both the dast and the rustance datasets.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The well-established GLUE-style benchmarks evaluate systems using mean aggregation over heterogeneous task-specific metrics (Wang et al, 2018(Wang et al, , 2019(Wang et al, , 2021a. Based on the criticism of this evaluation protocol by the research community (e.g., Waseem et al, 2021;Mishra and Arunkumar, 2021;Agarwal et al, 2021), we recognize that mean aggregation in our case does not account for the nature of the adversarial transformations and attacks and task specifications, such as the task type, domain, and the number of episodes in D train and D test . Baseline evaluation.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%