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

Jessie J. Smith

Jessie J. Smith contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligencecs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

REAL ML: Recognizing, Exploring, and Articulating Limitations of Machine Learning Research

Transparency around limitations can improve the scientific rigor of research, help ensure appropriate interpretation of research findings, and make research claims more credible. Despite these benefits, the machine learning (ML) research community lacks well-developed norms around disclosing and discussing limitations. To address this gap, we conduct an iterative design process with 30 ML and ML-adjacent researchers to develop and test REAL ML, a set of guided activities to help ML researchers recognize, explore, and articulate the limitations of their research. Using a three-stage interview and survey study, we identify ML researchers' perceptions of limitations, as well as the challenges they face when recognizing, exploring, and articulating limitations. We develop REAL ML to address some of these practical challenges, and highlight additional cultural challenges that will require broader shifts in community norms to address. We hope our study and REAL ML help move the ML research community toward more active and appropriate engagement with limitations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

RecSys Fairness Metrics: Many to Use But Which One To Choose?

In recent years, recommendation and ranking systems have become increasingly popular on digital platforms. However, previous work has highlighted how personalized systems might lead to unintentional harms for users. Practitioners require metrics to measure and mitigate these types of harms in production systems. To meet this need, many fairness definitions have been introduced and explored by the RecSys community. Unfortunately, this has led to a proliferation of possible fairness metrics from which practitioners can choose. The increase in volume and complexity of metrics creates a need for practitioners to deeply understand the nuances of fairness definitions and implementations. Additionally, practitioners need to understand the ethical guidelines that accompany these metrics for responsible implementation. Recent work has shown that there is a proliferation of ethics guidelines and has pointed to the need for more implementation guidance rather than principles alone. The wide variety of available metrics, coupled with the lack of accepted standards or shared knowledge in practice leads to a challenging environment for practitioners to navigate. In this position paper, we focus on this widening gap between the research community and practitioners concerning the availability of metrics versus the ability to put them into practice. We address this gap with our current work, which focuses on developing methods to help ML practitioners in their decision-making processes when picking fairness metrics for recommendation and ranking systems. In our iterative design interviews, we have already found that practitioners need both practical and reflective guidance when refining fairness constraints. This is especially salient given the growing challenge for practitioners to leverage the correct metrics while balancing complex fairness contexts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access