BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Cynthia C. S. Liem

Cynthia C. S. Liem contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligencecs.CYInformation RetrievalMachine LearningSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Hidden Author Bias in Book Recommendation

Collaborative filtering algorithms have the advantage of not requiring sensitive user or item information to provide recommendations. However, they still suffer from fairness related issues, like popularity bias. In this work, we argue that popularity bias often leads to other biases that are not obvious when additional user or item information is not provided to the researcher. We examine our hypothesis in the book recommendation case on a commonly used dataset with book ratings. We enrich it with author information using publicly available external sources. We find that popular books are mainly written by US citizens in the dataset, and that these books tend to be recommended disproportionally by popular collaborative filtering algorithms compared to the users' profiles. We conclude that the societal implications of popularity bias should be further examined by the scholar community.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Social Inclusion in Curated Contexts: Insights from Museum Practices

Artificial intelligence literature suggests that minority and fragile communities in society can be negatively impacted by machine learning algorithms due to inherent biases in the design process, which lead to socially exclusive decisions and policies. Faced with similar challenges in dealing with an increasingly diversified audience, the museum sector has seen changes in theory and practice, particularly in the areas of representation and meaning-making. While rarity and grandeur used to be at the centre stage of the early museum practices, folk life and museums' relationships with the diverse communities they serve become a widely integrated part of the contemporary practices. These changes address issues of diversity and accessibility in order to offer more socially inclusive services. Drawing on these changes and reflecting back on the AI world, we argue that the museum experience provides useful lessons for building AI with socially inclusive approaches, especially in situations in which both a collection and access to it will need to be curated or filtered, as frequently happens in search engines, recommender systems and digital libraries. We highlight three principles: (1) Instead of upholding the value of neutrality, practitioners are aware of the influences of their own backgrounds and those of others on their work. By not claiming to be neutral but practising cultural humility, the chances of addressing potential biases can be increased. (2) There should be room for situational interpretation beyond the stages of data collection and machine learning. Before applying models and predictions, the contexts in which relevant parties exist should be taken into account. (3) Community participation serves the needs of communities and has the added benefit of bringing practitioners and communities together.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

What Are We Really Testing in Mutation Testing for Machine Learning? A Critical Reflection

Mutation testing is a well-established technique for assessing a test suite's quality by injecting artificial faults into production code. In recent years, mutation testing has been extended to machine learning (ML) systems, and deep learning (DL) in particular; researchers have proposed approaches, tools, and statistically sound heuristics to determine whether mutants in DL systems are killed or not. However, as we will argue in this work, questions can be raised to what extent currently used mutation testing techniques in DL are actually in line with the classical interpretation of mutation testing. We observe that ML model development resembles a test-driven development (TDD) process, in which a training algorithm (`programmer') generates a model (program) that fits the data points (test data) to labels (implicit assertions), up to a certain threshold. However, considering proposed mutation testing techniques for ML systems under this TDD metaphor, in current approaches, the distinction between production and test code is blurry, and the realism of mutation operators can be challenged. We also consider the fundamental hypotheses underlying classical mutation testing: the competent programmer hypothesis and coupling effect hypothesis. As we will illustrate, these hypotheses do not trivially translate to ML system development, and more conscious and explicit scoping and concept mapping will be needed to truly draw parallels. Based on our observations, we propose several action points for better alignment of mutation testing techniques for ML with paradigms and vocabularies of classical mutation testing.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access