亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

The more AI-assisted decisions affect people's lives, the more important the fairness of such decisions becomes. In this chapter, we provide an introduction to research on fairness in machine learning. We explain the main fairness definitions and strategies for achieving fairness using concrete examples and place fairness research in the European context. Our contribution is aimed at an interdisciplinary audience and therefore avoids mathematical formulation but emphasizes visualizations and examples. -- Je mehr KI-gest\"utzte Entscheidungen das Leben von Menschen betreffen, desto wichtiger ist die Fairness solcher Entscheidungen. In diesem Kapitel geben wir eine Einf\"uhrung in die Forschung zu Fairness im maschinellen Lernen. Wir erkl\"aren die wesentlichen Fairness-Definitionen und Strategien zur Erreichung von Fairness anhand konkreter Beispiele und ordnen die Fairness-Forschung in den europ\"aischen Kontext ein. Unser Beitrag richtet sich dabei an ein interdisziplin\"ares Publikum und verzichtet daher auf die mathematische Formulierung sondern betont Visualisierungen und Beispiele.

Generative AI models have recently achieved astonishing results in quality and are consequently employed in a fast-growing number of applications. However, since they are highly data-driven, relying on billion-sized datasets randomly scraped from the internet, they also suffer from degenerated and biased human behavior, as we demonstrate. In fact, they may even reinforce such biases. To not only uncover but also combat these undesired effects, we present a novel strategy, called Fair Diffusion, to attenuate biases after the deployment of generative text-to-image models. Specifically, we demonstrate shifting a bias, based on human instructions, in any direction yielding arbitrarily new proportions for, e.g., identity groups. As our empirical evaluation demonstrates, this introduced control enables instructing generative image models on fairness, with no data filtering and additional training required.

Fairness-aware machine learning has attracted a surge of attention in many domains, such as online advertising, personalized recommendation, and social media analysis in web applications. Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. Among many existing fairness notions, counterfactual fairness is a popular notion defined from a causal perspective. It measures the fairness of a predictor by comparing the prediction of each individual in the original world and that in the counterfactual worlds in which the value of the sensitive attribute is modified. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. However, in real-world scenarios, the underlying causal model is often unknown, and acquiring such human knowledge could be very difficult. In these scenarios, it is risky to directly trust the causal models obtained from information sources with unknown reliability and even causal discovery methods, as incorrect causal models can consequently bring biases to the predictor and lead to unfair predictions. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE. Specifically, under certain general assumptions, CLAIRE effectively mitigates the biases from the sensitive attribute with a representation learning framework based on counterfactual data augmentation and an invariant penalty. Experiments conducted on both synthetic and real-world datasets validate the superiority of CLAIRE in both counterfactual fairness and prediction performance.

The transformative influence of Large Language Models (LLMs) is profoundly reshaping the Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology domain. Notably, ChatGPT distinguishes itself within these models, demonstrating remarkable performance in multi-turn conversations and exhibiting code proficiency across an array of languages. In this paper, we carry out a comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's coding capabilities based on what is to date the largest catalog of coding challenges. Our focus is on the python programming language and problems centered on data structures and algorithms, two topics at the very foundations of Computer Science. We evaluate ChatGPT for its ability to generate correct solutions to the problems fed to it, its code quality, and nature of run-time errors thrown by its code. Where ChatGPT code successfully executes, but fails to solve the problem at hand, we look into patterns in the test cases passed in order to gain some insights into how wrong ChatGPT code is in these kinds of situations. To infer whether ChatGPT might have directly memorized some of the data that was used to train it, we methodically design an experiment to investigate this phenomena. Making comparisons with human performance whenever feasible, we investigate all the above questions from the context of both its underlying learning models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), on a vast array sub-topics within the main topics, and on problems having varying degrees of difficulty.

Predictions under hypothetical interventions are estimates of what a person's risk of an outcome would be if they were to follow a particular treatment strategy, given their individual characteristics. Such predictions can give important input to medical decision making. However, evaluating predictive performance of interventional predictions is challenging. Standard ways of evaluating predictive performance do not apply when using observational data, because prediction under interventions involves obtaining predictions of the outcome under conditions that are different to those that are observed for a subset of individuals in the validation dataset. This work describes methods for evaluating counterfactual predictive performance of predictions under interventions for time-to-event outcomes. This means we aim to assess how well predictions would match the validation data if all individuals had followed the treatment strategy under which predictions are made. We focus on counterfactual performance evaluation using longitudinal observational data, and under treatment strategies that involve sustaining a particular treatment regime over time. We introduce an estimation approach using artificial censoring and inverse probability weighting which involves creating a validation dataset that mimics the treatment strategy under which predictions are made. We extend measures of calibration, discrimination (c-index and cumulative/dynamic AUC) and overall prediction error (Brier score) to allow assessment of counterfactual performance. The methods are evaluated using a simulation study, including scenarios in which the methods should detect poor performance. Applying our methods in the context of liver transplantation shows that our procedure allows quantification of the performance of predictions supporting crucial decisions on organ allocation.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has received widespread interest in recent years, and two of the most popular types of explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. These classes of approaches have been largely studied independently and the few attempts at reconciling them have been primarily empirical. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions, focusing on but not limited to SHAP, and counterfactuals explanations. After motivating operative changes to Shapley values based feature attributions and counterfactual explanations, we prove that, under conditions, they are in fact equivalent. We then extend the equivalency result to game-theoretic solution concepts beyond Shapley values. Moreover, through the analysis of the conditions of such equivalence, we shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances. Experiments on three datasets quantitatively show the difference in explanations at every stage of the connection between the two approaches and corroborate the theoretical findings.

Beliefs and values are increasingly being incorporated into our AI systems through alignment processes, such as carefully curating data collection principles or regularizing the loss function used for training. However, the meta-alignment problem is that these human beliefs are diverse and not aligned across populations; furthermore, the implicit strength of each belief may not be well calibrated even among humans, especially when trying to generalize across contexts. Specifically, in high regret situations, we observe that contextual counterfactuals and recourse costs are particularly important in updating a decision maker's beliefs and the strengths to which such beliefs are held. Therefore, we argue that including counterfactuals is key to an accurate calibration of beliefs during alignment. To do this, we first segment belief diversity into two categories: subjectivity (across individuals within a population) and epistemic uncertainty (within an individual across different contexts). By leveraging our notion of epistemic uncertainty, we introduce `the belief calibration cycle' framework to more holistically calibrate this diversity of beliefs with context-driven counterfactual reasoning by using a multi-objective optimization. We empirically apply our framework for finding a Pareto frontier of clustered optimal belief strengths that generalize across different contexts, demonstrating its efficacy on a toy dataset for credit decisions.

In recent years, Graph Neural Networks have reported outstanding performance in tasks like community detection, molecule classification and link prediction. However, the black-box nature of these models prevents their application in domains like health and finance, where understanding the models' decisions is essential. Counterfactual Explanations (CE) provide these understandings through examples. Moreover, the literature on CE is flourishing with novel explanation methods which are tailored to graph learning. In this survey, we analyse the existing Graph Counterfactual Explanation methods, by providing the reader with an organisation of the literature according to a uniform formal notation for definitions, datasets, and metrics, thus, simplifying potential comparisons w.r.t to the method advantages and disadvantages. We discussed seven methods and sixteen synthetic and real datasets providing details on the possible generation strategies. We highlight the most common evaluation strategies and formalise nine of the metrics used in the literature. We first introduce the evaluation framework GRETEL and how it is possible to extend and use it while providing a further dimension of comparison encompassing reproducibility aspects. Finally, we provide a discussion on how counterfactual explanation interplays with privacy and fairness, before delving into open challenges and future works.

Over the past few years, the rapid development of deep learning technologies for computer vision has greatly promoted the performance of medical image segmentation (MedISeg). However, the recent MedISeg publications usually focus on presentations of the major contributions (e.g., network architectures, training strategies, and loss functions) while unwittingly ignoring some marginal implementation details (also known as "tricks"), leading to a potential problem of the unfair experimental result comparisons. In this paper, we collect a series of MedISeg tricks for different model implementation phases (i.e., pre-training model, data pre-processing, data augmentation, model implementation, model inference, and result post-processing), and experimentally explore the effectiveness of these tricks on the consistent baseline models. Compared to paper-driven surveys that only blandly focus on the advantages and limitation analyses of segmentation models, our work provides a large number of solid experiments and is more technically operable. With the extensive experimental results on both the representative 2D and 3D medical image datasets, we explicitly clarify the effect of these tricks. Moreover, based on the surveyed tricks, we also open-sourced a strong MedISeg repository, where each of its components has the advantage of plug-and-play. We believe that this milestone work not only completes a comprehensive and complementary survey of the state-of-the-art MedISeg approaches, but also offers a practical guide for addressing the future medical image processing challenges including but not limited to small dataset learning, class imbalance learning, multi-modality learning, and domain adaptation. The code has been released at: //github.com/hust-linyi/MedISeg

Structural data well exists in Web applications, such as social networks in social media, citation networks in academic websites, and threads data in online forums. Due to the complex topology, it is difficult to process and make use of the rich information within such data. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown great advantages on learning representations for structural data. However, the non-transparency of the deep learning models makes it non-trivial to explain and interpret the predictions made by GNNs. Meanwhile, it is also a big challenge to evaluate the GNN explanations, since in many cases, the ground-truth explanations are unavailable. In this paper, we take insights of Counterfactual and Factual (CF^2) reasoning from causal inference theory, to solve both the learning and evaluation problems in explainable GNNs. For generating explanations, we propose a model-agnostic framework by formulating an optimization problem based on both of the two casual perspectives. This distinguishes CF^2 from previous explainable GNNs that only consider one of them. Another contribution of the work is the evaluation of GNN explanations. For quantitatively evaluating the generated explanations without the requirement of ground-truth, we design metrics based on Counterfactual and Factual reasoning to evaluate the necessity and sufficiency of the explanations. Experiments show that no matter ground-truth explanations are available or not, CF^2 generates better explanations than previous state-of-the-art methods on real-world datasets. Moreover, the statistic analysis justifies the correlation between the performance on ground-truth evaluation and our proposed metrics.