Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Week 6a

    Uploaded by

    Khaled Tarek
    This document discusses key concepts in natural language processing including precision, recall, F1 score, confusion matrices, and statistical significance testing. It explains that accuracy is not always the best evaluation metric and provides an example showing how a classifier could achieve high accuracy but be useless. Precision, recall, and F1 scores are introduced as alternative evaluation metrics that emphasize true positives. The document also discusses macroaveraging, microaveraging, development test sets, cross-validation, and statistical hypothesis testing using methods like bootstrap testing to determine if performance differences between models are statistically significant. Finally, it covers issues like harms in classification models and the use of model cards to document a model's performance for different groups.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Week 6a

    Uploaded by

    Khaled Tarek
    11 views33 pages
    This document discusses key concepts in natural language processing including precision, recall, F1 score, confusion matrices, and statistical significance testing. It explains that accuracy is not always the best evaluation metric and provides an example showing how a classifier could achieve high accuracy but be useless. Precision, recall, and F1 scores are introduced as alternative evaluation metrics that emphasize true positives. The document also discusses macroaveraging, microaveraging, development test sets, cross-validation, and statistical hypothesis testing using methods like bootstrap testing to determine if performance differences between models are statistically significant. Finally, it covers issues like harms in classification models and the use of model cards to document a model's performance for different groups.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Week--6a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses key concepts in natural language processing including precision, recall, F1 score, confusion matrices, and statistical significance testing. It explains that accuracy is not always the best evaluation metric and provides an example showing how a classifier could achieve high accuracy but be useless. Precision, recall, and F1 scores are introduced as alternative evaluation metrics that emphasize true positives. The document also discusses macroaveraging, microaveraging, development test sets, cross-validation, and statistical hypothesis testing using methods like bootstrap testing to determine if performance differences between models are statistically significant. Finally, it covers issues like harms in classification models and the use of model cards to document a model's performance for different groups.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    11 views33 pages

    Week 6a

    Uploaded by

    Khaled Tarek
    This document discusses key concepts in natural language processing including precision, recall, F1 score, confusion matrices, and statistical significance testing. It explains that accuracy is not always the best evaluation metric and provides an example showing how a classifier could achieve high accuracy but be useless. Precision, recall, and F1 scores are introduced as alternative evaluation metrics that emphasize true positives. The document also discusses macroaveraging, microaveraging, development test sets, cross-validation, and statistical hypothesis testing using methods like bootstrap testing to determine if performance differences between models are statistically significant. Finally, it covers issues like harms in classification models and the use of model cards to document a model's performance for different groups.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 33

    Natural Language Processing

    Mahmmoud Mahdi
    Precision, Recall, and F measure
    The 2-by-2 confusion matrix
    Evaluation: Accuracy
    Why don't we use accuracy as our metric?
    Imagine we saw 1 million tweets
    ○ 100 of them talked about Delicious Pie Co.
    ○ 999,900 talked about something else
    We could build a dumb classifier that just labels every tweet
    "not about pie"
    ○ It would get 99.99% accuracy!!! Wow!!!!
    ○ But useless! Doesn't return the comments we are looking for!
    ○ That's why we use precision and recall instead
    Evaluation: Precision
    % of items the system detected (i.e., items the system labeled
    as positive) that are in fact positive (according to the human
    gold labels)
    Evaluation: Recall
    % of items actually present in the input that were correctly
    identified by the system.
    Why Precision and recall
    Our dumb pie-classifier
    ○ Just label nothing as "about pie"

    Accuracy=99.99%
    but

    Recall = 0
    ○ (it doesn't get any of the 100 Pie tweets)

    Precision and recall, unlike accuracy, emphasize true


    positives:
    ○ finding the things that we are supposed to be looking for.
    A combined measure: F
    F measure: a single number that combines P and R:

    We almost always use balanced F1 (i.e., β = 1)


    Evaluation with more than two classes
    Confusion Matrix for 3-class classification
    How to combine P/R from 3 classes to get one metric
    Macroaveraging:
    ○ compute the performance for each class, and then average over
    classes
    Microaveraging:
    ○ collect decisions for all classes into one confusion matrix
    ○ compute precision and recall from that table.
    Macroaveraging and Microaveraging
    Statistical Significance Testing
    Development Test Sets ("Devsets") and Cross-validation
    Development Test Test
    Training set
    Set Set

    Train on training set, tune on devset, report on testset


    ○ This avoids overfitting (‘tuning to the test set’)
    ○ More conservative estimate of performance
    ○ But paradox: want as much data as possible for training, and as much for
    dev; how to split?
    Cross-validation: multiple splits
    Pool results over splits, Compute pooled dev performance
    How do we know if one classifier is better than another?

    Given:
    ○ Classifier A and B
    ○ Metric M: M(A,x) is the performance of A on testset x
    ○ 𝛿(x): the performance difference between A, B on x:
    ■ 𝛿(x) = M(A,x) – M(B,x)
    ○ We want to know if 𝛿(x)>0, meaning A is better than B
    ○ 𝛿(x) is called the effect size
    ○ Suppose we look and see that 𝛿(x) is positive. Are we done?
    ○ No! This might be just an accident of this one test set, or
    circumstance of the experiment.
    Statistical Hypothesis Testing
    Consider two hypotheses:
    • Null hypothesis: A isn't better than B
    • A is better than B
    We want to rule out H0
    We create a random variable X ranging over test sets
    And ask, how likely, if H0 is true, is it that among these test
    sets we would see the 𝛿(x) we did see?
    • Formalized as the p-value:
    Statistical Hypothesis Testing

    ● In our example, this p-value is the probability that we would


    see δ(x) assuming H0 (=A is not better than B).
    ○ If H0 is true but δ(x) is huge, that is surprising! Very low probability!
    ● A very small p-value means that the difference we observed is
    very unlikely under the null hypothesis, and we can reject
    the null hypothesis
    ● Very small: .05 or .01
    ● A result(e.g., “A is better than B”) is statistically
    significant if the δ we saw has a probability that is below
    the threshold and we therefore reject this null hypothesis.
    Statistical Hypothesis Testing
    ● How do we compute this probability?
    ● In NLP, we don't tend to use parametric tests
    ● Instead, we use non-parametric tests based on sampling:
    artificially creating many versions of the setup.
    ● For example, suppose we had created zillions of testsets
    x'.
    ○ Now we measure the value of 𝛿(x') on each test set
    ○ That gives us a distribution
    ○ Now set a threshold (say .01).
    ○ So if we see that in 99% of the test sets 𝛿(x) > 𝛿(x')
    ■ We conclude that our original test set delta was a
    real delta and not an artifact.
    Statistical Hypothesis Testing
    Two common approaches:
    ● approximate randomization
    ● bootstrap test
    Paired tests:
    ● Comparing two sets of observations in which each observation
    in one set can be paired with an observation in another.
    ● For example, when looking at systems A and B on the same test
    set, we can compare the performance of system A and B on each
    same observation xi
    The Paired Bootstrap Test
    Bootstrap test Efron and Tibshirani, 1993

    Can apply to any metric (accuracy, precision, recall, F1,


    etc).
    Bootstrap means to repeatedly draw large numbers of smaller
    samples with replacement (called bootstrap samples) from an
    original larger sample.
    Bootstrap example
    Consider a baby text classification example with a test set x
    of 10 documents, using accuracy as metric.
    Suppose these are the results of systems A and B on x, with 4
    outcomes (A & B both right, A & B both wrong, A right/B wrong,
    A wrong/B right):
    either A+B both correct, or
    Bootstrap example
    Now we create, many, say, b=10,000 virtual test sets x(i),
    each of size n = 10.
    To make each x(i), we randomly select a cell from row x, with
    replacement, 10 times:
    Bootstrap example
    Now we have a distribution! We can check how often A has an
    accidental advantage, to see if the original 𝛿(x) we saw was
    very common.
    Now assuming H0, that means normally we expect 𝛿(x')=0
    So we just count how many times the 𝛿(x') we found exceeds the
    expected 0 value by 𝛿(x) or more:
    Bootstrap example
    Alas, it's slightly more complicated.
    We didn’t draw these samples from a distribution with 0 mean; we created
    them from the original test set x, which happens to be biased (by .20) in
    favor of A.
    So to measure how surprising is our observed δ(x), we actually compute the
    p-value by counting how often δ(x') exceeds the expected value of δ(x) by
    δ(x) or more:
    Bootstrap example
    Suppose:
    ○ We have 10,000 test sets x(i) and a
    threshold of .01
    ○ And in only 47 of the test sets do we find
    that δ(x(i)) ≥ 2δ(x)
    ○ The resulting p-value is .0047
    ○ This is smaller than .01, indicating δ (x)
    is indeed sufficiently surprising
    ○ And we reject the null hypothesis and
    conclude A is better than B.
    Paired bootstrap example
    After Berg-Kirkpatrick et al (2012)
    Avoiding Harms in Classification
    Harms in sentiment classifiers
    Kiritchenko and Mohammad (2018) found that most sentiment
    classifiers assign lower sentiment and more negative emotion
    to sentences with African American names in them.
    This perpetuates negative stereotypes that associate African
    Americans with negative emotions
    Harms in toxicity classification
    Toxicity detection is the task of detecting hate speech,
    abuse, harassment, or other kinds of toxic language
    But some toxicity classifiers incorrectly flag as being toxic
    sentences that are non-toxic but simply mention identities
    like blind people, women, or gay people.
    This could lead to censorship of discussion about these
    groups.
    What causes these harms?
    Can be caused by:
    ○ Problems in the training data; machine learning systems are known to amplify
    the biases in their training data.
    ○ Problems in the human labels
    ○ Problems in the resources used (like lexicons)
    ○ Problems in model architecture (like what the model is trained to optimized)

    Mitigation of these harms is an open research area


    Meanwhile: model cards
    Model Cards (Mitchell et al., 2019)

    For each algorithm you release, document:


    ○ training algorithms and parameters
    ○ training data sources, motivation, and preprocessing
    ○ evaluation data sources, motivation, and preprocessing
    ○ intended use and users
    ○ model performance across different demographic or other groups and
    environmental situations

    You might also like