Solved-Assignment #3- Solution

Description

Readings:

• Dixon, Lucas & Li, John & Sorensen, Jeffrey & Thain, Nithum & Vasserman, Lucy. “Measuring and Mitigating Unintended Bias in Text Classification,” AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 67-73, 2018. http://www.aies-conference.com/wp-content/papers/main/AIES_2018_paper_9.pdf

• Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam Kalai, “Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings,” NIPS 2016 –https://papers.nips.cc/paper/6228-man-is-to-computer-programmer-as-woman-is-to-homemaker-debiasing-word-embeddings.pdf

In this assignment, you’ll continue the process of exploring relationships in data. You’ll accomplish this task by computing some basic inferential statistical measures on a natural language-based dataset.

Natural language processing is concerned with the ability to process and analyze large amounts of natural language data, whether for automated sentence completion in emails, conversational agents and chatbots, or AI tools to help journalists. In this assignment, we will work with data from a classifier built to identify toxicity in comments from Wikipedia Talk Pages. The model is built from a dataset of 127,820 Talk Page comments, each labeled by human raters as toxic or non-toxic. A toxic comment is defined as a “rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion.”

Step 1 – Download the modified dataset – toxity_per_attribute.csv:

• <Wiki_ID> is unique identifier associated with Wikipedia comment

• <TOXICITY> is a toxicity value from 1 if the comment was considered toxic and value 0 if the comment was considered neutral or healthy

• < subgroup > columns: One column per human attribute; True if the comment mentioned this identity.

• Due to sensitivity, comments were removed to construct the modified dataset. The original data source can be found at: https://github.com/conversationai/unintended-ml-bias-analysis/tree/master/data

Step 2:

• Identify the protected class categories and define values for the associated protected class group by combining values from the related subgroups (e.g. christian + muslim + X -> Religion). Provide the classification results.

• In each protected class group, convert FALSE to 0 and TRUE to a unique value for each subgroup member (e.g. FALSE = 0; female = 1; binary = 2; etc.)

Step 3:

• Identify if any of the protected class groups are correlated to TOXICITY. Calculate the correlation between the protected class groups and TOXICITY. Provide the correlation

coefficients in table format. For any weak to very strongly correlated pairs, plot data for the correlated variables [Note: there may/may not be any weak to strong correlations in this dataset].

• As guidance, can use (Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing) which suggests the following related to the absolute value of the correlation coefficient:

o .00-.19 “very weak” correlation o .20-.39 “weak” correlation

o .40-.59 “moderate” correlation o .60-.79 “strong” correlation

o .80-1.0 “very strong” correlation

Example Output:

Classification Results – Protected Class Variables:

• Religion: christian, muslim

• Age: younger, older

Correlation Coefficients:

	Religion (Protected	Age (Protected Class
	Class Variable)	Variable)
TOXICITY	0.03	0.7

TOXICITY and Age are strongly correlated.

TOXICITY

Age

Step 4: Calculate the population mean and population standard deviation of TOXICITY. What is the range of values around the mean that includes 95% of TOXICITY? Run the random sampling method using 10%, 25%, 50% of the data. For each, what is the mean, standard deviation, and margin of error?

Step 5: Choose one of the protected class groups and create a histogram comparing the frequency values of TRUE/FALSE as a function of TOXICITY for each subgroup that is a member of the protected class group. Hint: For this question, discretize TOXICITY into discrete categories.

For these questions, continue with the protected class group selected in Step 4.

Step 6: Calculate the mean and standard deviation of TOXICITY associated with the protected class

group (Hint: TOXICITY values should only be included in the calculation when the associated protected

class group value is TRUE). Run the random sampling method using 25% and 50% of the data. For each, what is the mean and standard deviation? Indicate (yes/no) if the values lie within the associated population margin of error.

Step 7: Calculate the mean and standard deviation of TOXICITY associated with each subgroup that is a

member of the protected class group (Hint: TOXICITY values should only be included in the calculation when the associated subgroup value is TRUE). Run the random sampling method using 25% and 50% of the data. For each subgroup, what is the mean and standard deviation? Indicate (yes/no) if the values lie within the associated population margin of error.

Step 8: Run the stratisfied random sampling methods that covers 50% of the data. What is the mean and standard deviation? For each subgroup, what is the mean and standard deviation? Indicate (yes/no) if the values lie within the associated population margin of error.

Step 9: Plot (on one graph) – 1) the computed population mean/standard deviation (Step 3), (2) the computed mean/standard deviation using the random sampling method for each subgroup when using 50% of the data (Step 6), and 3) the computed mean/standard deviation using the stratisfied random sampling method for each subgroup (Step 7). Which sampling method has the largest error when comparing to the population mean? Define your method for computing error.

Step 10: Turn in a report documenting your outputs.