DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety

AI-generated keywords: Machine learning

AI-generated Key Points

  • Machine learning approaches often oversimplify the subjectivity of tasks by separating positive and negative examples in training and evaluation datasets.
  • The DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset addresses the issue of oversimplification by including detailed demographic information about raters, multiple ratings per item, and encoding rater votes across different demographics.
  • Human raters' backgrounds and experiences can introduce bias into labeled datasets used for training language models, leading to differences in toxicity ratings among different demographic groups.
  • The DICES dataset aims to provide a benchmark resource that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluations of conversational AI systems by allowing for nuanced understanding of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in assessments.
  • By accounting for diversity within annotator pools and capturing differences between various rater groups, the DICES dataset contributes to developing more rigorous methods for assessing safety in language models and promoting inclusivity and fairness in conversational AI development.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Lora Aroyo, Alex S. Taylor, Mark Diaz, Christopher M. Homan, Alicia Parrish, Greg Serapio-Garcia, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Ding Wang

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Machine learning approaches often require training and evaluation datasets with a clear separation between positive and negative examples. This risks simplifying and even obscuring the inherent subjectivity present in many tasks. Preserving such variance in content and diversity in datasets is often expensive and laborious. This is especially troubling when building safety datasets for conversational AI systems, as safety is both socially and culturally situated. To demonstrate this crucial aspect of conversational AI safety, and to facilitate in-depth model performance analyses, we introduce the DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset that contains fine-grained demographic information about raters, high replication of ratings per item to ensure statistical power for analyses, and encodes rater votes as distributions across different demographics to allow for in-depth explorations of different aggregation strategies. In short, the DICES dataset enables the observation and measurement of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in the context of conversational AI safety. We also illustrate how the dataset offers a basis for establishing metrics to show how raters' ratings can intersects with demographic categories such as racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and genders. The goal of DICES is to be used as a shared resource and benchmark that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluation of conversational AI systems.

Submitted to arXiv on 20 Jun. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2306.11247v1

, , , , Machine learning approaches often rely on training and evaluation datasets that separate positive and negative examples, potentially oversimplifying the inherent subjectivity of many tasks. This can be particularly problematic when building safety datasets for conversational AI systems, as safety is culturally and socially situated. To address this issue, the DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset has been introduced. This dataset includes detailed demographic information about raters, multiple ratings per item to ensure statistical power, and encodes rater votes across different demographics to allow for in-depth exploration of aggregation strategies. The importance of diverse perspectives in evaluating conversational AI safety is underscored by recent research focusing on toxicity, harm, and hate speech detection in language models. Studies have shown that human raters' backgrounds and experiences can introduce bias into labeled datasets used for training these models. For example, differences in toxicity ratings have been observed between raters from different demographic groups such as African American and LGBTQ populations compared to those who do not identify with these groups. The DICES dataset aims to provide a benchmark resource that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluations of conversational AI systems. By incorporating fine-grained demographic information about raters, the dataset allows for a nuanced understanding of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in conversational AI safety assessments. Additionally, previous research has highlighted the importance of considering population effects in datasets used for training language models and recognizing differences between diverse rater groups. In conclusion, the DICES dataset contributes to ongoing efforts to develop more rigorous methods for assessing safety in language models by accounting for diversity within annotator pools and capturing differences between various rater groups. By providing a comprehensive resource that facilitates detailed analyses of model performance based on demographic factors, the DICES dataset serves as a valuable tool for promoting inclusivity and fairness in conversational AI development.
Created on 20 Sep. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.