1
0
ml_measurement_error_public/civil_comments/design_example.R

178 lines
8.6 KiB
R

set.seed(1111)
source('load_perspective_data.R')
## how accurate are the classifiers?
## the API claims that these scores are "probabilities"
## say we care about the model of the classification, not the probability
F1 <- function(y, predictions){
tp <- sum( (predictions == y) & (predictions==1))
fn <- sum( (predictions != y) & (predictions!=1))
fp <- sum( (predictions != y) & (predictions==1))
precision <- tp / (tp + fp)
recall <- tp / (tp + fn)
return (2 * precision * recall ) / (precision + recall)
}
## toxicity is about 93% accurate, with an f1 of 0.8
## identity_attack has high accuracy 97%, but an unfortunant f1 of 0.5.
## threat has high accuracy 99%, but a really bad looking f1 of 0.48.
accuracies <- df[,.(identity_attack_acc = mean(identity_attack_pred == identity_attack_coded),
insult_pred_acc = mean(insult_pred == insult_coded),
profanity_acc = mean(profanity_pred == profanity_coded),
severe_toxicity_acc = mean(severe_toxicity_pred == severe_toxicity_coded),
theat_acc = mean(threat_pred == threat_coded),
toxicity_acc = mean(toxicity_pred == toxicity_coded))]
f1s <- df[,.(identity_attack_f1 = F1(identity_attack_coded,identity_attack_pred),
insult_f1 = F1(insult_coded,insult_pred),
profanity_f1 = F1(profanity_coded,profanity_pred),
severe_toxicity_f1 = F1(severe_toxicity_coded,severe_toxicity_pred),
theat_f1 = F1(threat_coded,threat_pred),
toxicity_f1 = F1(toxicity_coded,toxicity_pred))]
positive_cases <- df[,.(identity_attacks = sum(identity_attack_coded),
insults = sum(insult_coded),
profanities = sum(profanity_coded),
severe_toxic_comments = sum(severe_toxicity_coded),
threats = sum(threat_coded),
toxic_comments = sum(toxicity_coded))]
## there are 50,000 toxic comments, 13000 identity attacks, 30000 insults, 3000 profanities, 8 severe toxic, and 1000 threats.
proportions_cases <- df[,.(prop_identity = mean(identity_attack_coded),
prop_insults = mean(insult_coded),
prop_profanity = mean(profanity_coded),
prop_severe = mean(severe_toxicity_coded),
prop_threats = mean(threat_coded),
prop_toxic = mean(toxicity_coded))]
## at 11% of comments, "toxicity" seems not so badly skewed. Try toxicity first, and if it doesn't work out try insults.
## now look for an example where differential error affects an identity, or a reaction.
df <- df[,":="(identity_error = identity_attack_coded - identity_attack_pred,
insult_error = insult_coded - insult_pred,
profanity_error = profanity_coded - profanity_pred,
severe_toxic_error = severe_toxicity_coded - severe_toxicity_pred,
threat_error = threat_coded - threat_pred,
toxicity_error = toxicity_coded - toxicity_pred)]
## what's correlated with toxicity_error ?
df <- df[,approved := rating == "approved"]
df <- df[,white := white > 0.5]
cortab <- cor(df[,.(toxicity_error,
identity_error,
toxicity_coded,
funny,
approved,
sad,
wow,
likes,
disagree,
male,
female,
transgender,
other_gender,
heterosexual,
bisexual,
other_sexual_orientation,
christian,
jewish,
hindu,
buddhist,
atheist,
other_religion,
black,
white,
asian,
latino,
other_race_or_ethnicity,
physical_disability,
intellectual_or_learning_disability,
psychiatric_or_mental_illness,
other_disability)])
## toxicity error is weakly correlated pearson's R = 0.1 with both "white" and "black".
## compare regressions with "white" or "black" as the outcome and "toxicity_coded" or "toxicity_pred" as a predictor.
## here's a great example with presumambly non-differential error: about what identities is toxicity found humorous?
## a bunch of stars reappear when you used the ground-truth data instead of the predictions.
## pro/con of this example: will have to implement family='poisson'.
## shouldn't be that bad though haha.
cortab['toxicity_error',]
cortab['toxicity_error','funny']
cortab['toxicity_coded',]
cortab['identity_error',]
cortab['white',]
cortab <- cor(df[,.(toxicity_error,
identity_error,
toxicity_coded,
funny,
approved,
sad,
wow,
likes,
disagree,
gender_disclosed,
sexuality_disclosed,
religion_disclosed,
race_disclosed,
disability_disclosed)])
## here's a simple example, is P(white | toxic and mentally ill) > P(white | toxic or mentally ill). Are people who discuss their mental illness in a toxic way more likely to be white compared to those who just talk about their mental illness or are toxic?
summary(glm(white ~ toxicity_coded*psychiatric_or_mental_illness, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(white ~ toxicity_pred*psychiatric_or_mental_illness, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(white ~ toxicity_coded*male, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(white ~ toxicity_pred*male, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(toxicity_coded ~ white*psychiatric_or_mental_illness, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(toxicity_pred ~ white*psychiatric_or_mental_illness, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
## another simple enough example: is P(toxic | funny and white) > P(toxic | funny nand white)? Or, are funny comments more toxic when people disclose that they are white?
summary(glm(toxicity_pred ~ funny*white, data=df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
summary(glm(toxicity_coded ~ funny*white, data=df, family=binomial(link='logit')))
source("../simulations/measerr_methods.R")
saved_model_file <- "measerr_model_tox.eq.funny.cross.white.RDS"
overwrite_model <- TRUE
# it works so far with a 20% and 15% sample. Smaller is better. let's try a 10% sample again. It didn't work out. We'll go forward with a 15% sample.
df_measerr_method <- copy(df)[sample(1:.N, 0.05 * .N), toxicity_coded_1 := toxicity_coded]
df_measerr_method <- df_measerr_method[,toxicity_coded := toxicity_coded_1]
summary(glm(toxicity_coded ~ funny*white, data=df_measerr_method[!is.na(toxicity_coded)], family=binomial(link='logit')))
if(!file.exists(saved_model_file) || (overwrite_model == TRUE)){
measerr_model <- measerr_mle_dv(df_measerr_method,toxicity_coded ~ funny*white,outcome_family=binomial(link='logit'), proxy_formula=toxicity_pred ~ toxicity_coded*funny*white)
saveRDS(measerr_model, saved_model_file)
} else {
measerr_model <- readRDS(saved_model_file)
}
inv_hessian <- solve(measerr_model$hessian)
se <- diag(inv_hessian)
lm2 <- glm.nb(funny ~ (male + female + transgender + other_gender + heterosexual + bisexual + other_sexual_orientation + christian + jewish + hindu + buddhist + atheist + other_religion + asian + latino + other_race_or_ethnicity + physical_disability + intellectual_or_learning_disability + white + black + psychiatric_or_mental_illness)*toxicity_pred, data = df)
m3 <- glm.nb(funny ~ (male + female + transgender + other_gender + heterosexual + bisexual + other_sexual_orientation + christian + jewish + hindu + buddhist + atheist + other_religion + asian + latino + other_race_or_ethnicity + physical_disability + intellectual_or_learning_disability + white + black + psychiatric_or_mental_illness)*toxicity, data = df)
glm(white ~ disagree, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit'))
## example with differential error
glm(white ~ toxicity_coded + toxicity_error, data=df,family=binomial(link='logit'))
glm(toxicity_coded ~ white, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit'))
glm(toxicity_pred ~ white, data = df, family=binomial(link='logit'))