Skip to content
Longterm Wiki
Back

Zhang et al. (2021)

paper

Authors

Abeba Birhane·Pratyusha Kalluri·Dallas Card·William Agnew·Ravit Dotan·Michelle Bao

Credibility Rating

3/5
Good(3)

Good quality. Reputable source with community review or editorial standards, but less rigorous than peer-reviewed venues.

Rating inherited from publication venue: arXiv

Research paper examining values encoded in machine learning research papers through annotation schemes, directly addressing how ML systems reflect and perpetuate specific values—critical for understanding AI safety implications and responsible AI development.

Paper Details

Citations
0
25 influential
Year
2021

Metadata

arxiv preprintprimary source

Abstract

Machine learning currently exerts an outsized influence on the world, increasingly affecting institutional practices and impacted communities. It is therefore critical that we question vague conceptions of the field as value-neutral or universally beneficial, and investigate what specific values the field is advancing. In this paper, we first introduce a method and annotation scheme for studying the values encoded in documents such as research papers. Applying the scheme, we analyze 100 highly cited machine learning papers published at premier machine learning conferences, ICML and NeurIPS. We annotate key features of papers which reveal their values: their justification for their choice of project, which attributes of their project they uplift, their consideration of potential negative consequences, and their institutional affiliations and funding sources. We find that few of the papers justify how their project connects to a societal need (15\%) and far fewer discuss negative potential (1\%). Through line-by-line content analysis, we identify 59 values that are uplifted in ML research, and, of these, we find that the papers most frequently justify and assess themselves based on Performance, Generalization, Quantitative evidence, Efficiency, Building on past work, and Novelty. We present extensive textual evidence and identify key themes in the definitions and operationalization of these values. Notably, we find systematic textual evidence that these top values are being defined and applied with assumptions and implications generally supporting the centralization of power.Finally, we find increasingly close ties between these highly cited papers and tech companies and elite universities.

Summary

Zhang et al. (2021) develops a method to systematically analyze the values encoded in machine learning research papers. By annotating 100 highly cited papers from ICML and NeurIPS conferences, the authors identify 59 distinct values that ML research upholds. They find that papers rarely justify connections to societal needs (15%) or discuss potential harms (1%), instead prioritizing Performance, Generalization, Quantitative evidence, Efficiency, and Novelty. Critically, the analysis reveals that these dominant values are defined and applied in ways that systematically support power centralization, while funding and institutional ties increasingly concentrate among tech companies and elite universities.

Cited by 1 page

PageTypeQuality
AI Safety Research Allocation ModelAnalysis65.0

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Mar 20, 202698 KB
# The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research

Abeba Birhane
[abeba@mozillafoundation.org](mailto:abeba@mozillafoundation.org)[0000-0001-6319-7937](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6319-7937 "ORCID identifier")Mozilla Foundation & School of Computer Science, University College DublinBelfiedDublinIreland, Pratyusha Kalluri
[pkalluri@stanford.edu](mailto:pkalluri@stanford.edu)[0000-0001-7202-8027](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7202-8027 "ORCID identifier")Computer Science Department, Stanford University353 Jane Stanford WayPalo AltoUSA, Dallas Card
[dalc@umich.edu](mailto:dalc@umich.edu)[0000-0001-5573-8836](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5573-8836 "ORCID identifier")School of Information, University of Michigan105 S State StAnn ArborUSA, William Agnew
[wagnew3@cs.washington.edu](mailto:wagnew3@cs.washington.edu)[ORCID identifier](https://orcid.org/ "ORCID identifier")Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington185 E Stevens Way NESeattleUSA, Ravit Dotan
[ravit.dotan@berkeley.edu](mailto:ravit.dotan@berkeley.edu)[0000-0002-9646-8315](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9646-8315 "ORCID identifier")Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh4200 Fifth AvePittsburghUSA and Michelle Bao
[baom@stanford.edu](mailto:baom@stanford.edu)[0000-0002-4410-0703](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4410-0703 "ORCID identifier")Computer Science Department, Stanford University353 Jane Stanford WayPalo AltoUSA

(2022)

###### Abstract.

Machine learning currently exerts an outsized influence on the world, increasingly affecting institutional practices and impacted communities. It is therefore critical that we question vague conceptions of the field as value-neutral or universally beneficial, and investigate what specific values the field is advancing. In this paper, we first introduce a method and annotation scheme for studying the values encoded in documents such as research papers. Applying the scheme, we analyze 100 highly cited machine learning papers published at premier machine learning conferences, ICML and NeurIPS. We annotate key features of papers which reveal their values: their justification for their choice of project, which attributes of their project they uplift, their consideration of potential negative consequences, and their institutional affiliations and funding sources. We find that few of the papers justify how their project connects to a societal need (15%) and far fewer discuss negative potential (1%). Through line-by-line content analysis, we identify 59 values that are uplifted in ML research, and, of these, we find that the papers most frequently justify and assess themselves based on Performance, Generalization, Quantitative evidence, Efficiency, Building on past work, and Novelty.
We present extensive textual evidence and identify key themes in the definitions and operationalization of these values. Notably, we find systematic textual evidence that these top values are being defined and applied with assumpt

... (truncated, 98 KB total)
Resource ID: 4c76d88cc9dd70a0 | Stable ID: MzcwMDRkZW