From Model Performance to Claim: How a Change of Focus in Machine Learning Replicability Can Help Bridge the Responsibility Gap

Abstract

Two goals - improving replicability and accountability of Machine Learning research respectively, have accrued much attention from the AI ethics and the Machine Learning community. Despite sharing the measures of improving transparency, the two goals are discussed in different registers - replicability registers with scientific reasoning whereas accountability registers with ethical reasoning. Given the existing challenge of the Responsibility Gap - holding Machine Learning scientists accountable for Machine Learning harms due to them being far from sites of application, this paper posits that reconceptualizing replicability can help bridge the gap. Through a shift from model performance replicability to claim replicability, Machine Learning scientists can be held accountable for producing non-replicable claims that are prone to eliciting harm due to misuse and misinterpretation. In this paper, I make the following contributions. First, I define and distinguish two forms of replicability for ML research that can aid constructive conversations around replicability. Second, I formulate an argument for claim-replicability's advantage over model performance replicability in justifying assigning accountability to Machine Learning scientists for producing non-replicable claims and show how it enacts a sense of responsibility that is actionable. In addition, I characterize the implementation of claim replicability as more of a social project than a technical one by discussing its competing epistemological principles, practical implications on Circulating Reference, Interpretative Labor, and research communication.

FAccT 2024

References in corpus (21)

• Model Cards for Model Reporting
• An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making
• Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems
• The Fallacy of AI Functionality
• Measurement and Fairness
• The Hidden Assumptions Behind Counterfactual Explanations and Principal Reasons
• Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models
• Data Science as Political Action: Grounding Data Science in a Politics of Justice
• Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning
• Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systems
• Dislocated Accountabilities in the AI Supply Chain: Modularity and Developers' Notions of Responsibility
• The Fundamental Principles of Reproducibility
• Goodbye Tracking? Impact of iOS App Tracking Transparency and Privacy Labels
• CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotation
• "There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making
• WEIRD FAccTs: How Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic is FAccT?
• From Optimizing Engagement to Measuring Value
• REAL ML: Recognizing, Exploring, and Articulating Limitations of Machine Learning Research
• Augmented Datasheets for Speech Datasets and Ethical Decision-Making
• Making the Unaccountable Internet: The Changing Meaning of Accounting in the Early ARPANET