REVIEW 2 cited by
Position: Measure Dataset Diversity, Don't Just Claim It
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Machine learning (ML) datasets, often perceived as neutral, inherently encapsulate abstract and disputed social constructs. Dataset curators frequently employ value-laden terms such as diversity, bias, and quality to characterize datasets. Despite their prevalence, these terms lack clear definitions and validation. Our research explores the implications of this issue by analyzing "diversity" across 135 image and text datasets. Drawing from social sciences, we apply principles from measurement theory to identify considerations and offer recommendations for conceptualizing, operationalizing, and evaluating diversity in datasets. Our findings have broader implications for ML research, advocating for a more nuanced and precise approach to handling value-laden properties in dataset construction.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Toward Valid Measurement Of (Un)fairness For Generative AI: A Proposal For Systematization Through The Lens Of Fair Equality of Chances
A Fair Equality of Chances-based framework decomposes GenAI unfairness into harms/benefits, morally arbitrary factors, and morally decisive factors to improve measurement validity.
-
Understanding and Meeting Practitioner Needs When Measuring Representational Harms Caused by LLM-Based Systems
Practitioners trying to measure representational harms in LLM-based systems often cannot use public measurement instruments, either because the instruments lack validity, specificity, interpretability, or actionabilit...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.