Archive for discrimination

Data science ethics [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 5, 2025 by xi'an

Data science ethics (concepts, techniques and cautionary tales), by David Martens, was published in 2022 by Oxford University Press. The book is inspired by the author’s  course on Data Science and ethics he has been teaching at the University of Antwerp. (With a link to his slides.) The 255p book proceeds by decomposing the ethics of data science into its different steps: data gathering (Chap. 2), data preprocessing (Chap. 3), modelling (Chap. 4), evaluation (Chap. 5), and deployment (Chap. 6). Following the `FAT Flow Framework´, where FAT stands for fairness, accountability, and transparency.

Do not expect much maths, stats, or anything quantitative: this book is mostly about concepts, even though some (mostly well-known) illustrations are provided. Chapter 2 includes a description of encryption (with homomorphic encryption treated in Chapter 4). And somewhat improbably quantum computing. Differential privacy gets a few pages with not a single formula (until Chapter 4, again).

Chapter 3 covers k-anonymity, record linkage, reidentification, (through cautionary tales) and discrimination through biases in the (learning) dataset.  Chapter 4 is defining ε differential privacy with the Laplace randomization as a possible implementation and with no critical stance on the limitations of the concept. The computation limitations of homomorphic encryption are more clearly pointed out. Federated learning is only quickly mentioned. The section about measuring fairness and reducing bias implies that some prior knowledge is available about whom is potentially discriminated and which covariates to add to the model. The last section on explicability of predictions is worthwhile in signalling the difficulty with most (black box) AI but the example opposing an SVM model to a logistic model is not tremendously convincing in that neither model is true.

Chapter 5 addresses the crucial challenge of ethical evaluation in a rather verbose and vague manner. For instance, with no instruction on how to resist adversarial attacks. Or criticising p-hacking and multiple testing while missing the elephant in the room (p-values!). Drifting from the topic when discussing the misdeeds of Diederik Stapel. Most of the same goes about Chapter 6 and its take on ethical deployment, when going through examples such as Google’s policies in China. Or general musing on the impact of AI on societal inequalities (with mentions of companies and CEOs who have since then back-pedalled on their ethical engagement). These chapters are lacking in tools and (more) practical recommendations.

One interesting aspect of the book is the attention paid to the EU(ropean) aspect of these concerns, through the GDPR (General DAta Protection Regulations) adopted by the European Parliament in 2016. (There is also a brief mention of China’s regulations, but no details beyond a reference. Maybe the Chinese edition differs.)

the suicidal consequences of the immigration law on research and higher education

Posted in Kids, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2023 by xi'an

international day for the elimination of violence against women

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 25, 2023 by xi'an

[translated from a unified call by dozens of organisations and unions]

On this international day of November 25, in a context of more and more wars, our support goes to all women in the world, the first victims, along with children, of armed conflicts. We particularly show our support for the women of Ukraine, Burma, Palestine, Israel and Nagorno-Karabakh. We loudly proclaim our solidarity with our Afghan sisters kept under the yoke of appalling oppression when the mere fact of going to school becomes a heroic act. We reaffirm our sisterhood with Iranian and Kurdish women revolting for their freedom. We affirm our support to Uyghur women, persecuted and victims of a genocidal policy.

On November 25 we will march to pay tribute to all the victims of sexist violence, women, LGBTQIA+ people, to all those who suffer and struggle. To all those we have lost.ن زندگی آزادی [Women, Life, Freedom]

content which deviates from the norm [from Pest county]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 26, 2021 by xi'an

your GAN is secretly an energy-based model

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 5, 2021 by xi'an

As I was reading this NeurIPS 2020 paper by Che et al., and trying to make sense of it, I came across a citation to our paper Casella, Robert and Wells (2004) on a generalized accept-reject sampling scheme where the proposal changes at each simulation that sounds surprising if appreciated! But after checking this paper also appears as the first reference on the Wikipedia page for rejection sampling, which makes me wonder if many actually read it. (On the side, we mostly wrote this paper on a drive from Baltimore to Ithaca, after JSM 1999.)

“We provide more evidence that it is beneficial to sample from the energy-based model defined both by the generator and the discriminator instead of from the generator only.”

The paper seems to propose a post-processing of the generator output by a GAN, generating from the mixture of both generator and discriminator, via a (unscented) Langevin algorithm. The core idea is that, if p(.) is the true data generating process, g(.) the estimated generator and d(.) the discriminator, then

p(x) ≈ p⁰(x)∝g(x) exp(d(x))

(The approximation would be exact the discriminator optimal.) The authors work with the latent z’s, in the GAN meaning that generating pseudo-data x from g means taking a deterministic transform of z, x=G(z). When considering the above p⁰, a generation from p⁰ can be seen as accept-reject with acceptance probability proportional to exp[d{G(z)}]. (On the side, Lemma 1 is the standard validation for accept-reject sampling schemes.)

Reading this paper made me realise how much the field had evolved since my previous GAN related read. With directions like Metropolis-Hastings GANs and Wasserstein GANs. (And I noticed a “broader impact” section past the conclusion section about possible misuses with societal consequences, which is a new requirement for NeurIPS publications.)