Tulsee Doshi

dblp:151/6734 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Recommender systems · 77% Information retrieval · 23%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Services computing and microservices · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing
0.522017
Flash Organizations: Crowdsourcing Complex Work by Structuring Crowds As Organizations · CHI 2017
Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams · UIST 2014
Recommender systems
fairness-aware recommendation
0.412019
Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons · KDD 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.112019
Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons · KDD 2019
Information retrieval
ranking
0.112019
Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons · KDD 2019
Services computing and microservices
workflow management
0.112014
Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams · UIST 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

regularization · 0.8pairwise comparison · 0.8team assembly · 0.4task decomposition · 0.4version control model · 0.3computational organization structures · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvements
abstract
As more researchers have become aware of and passionate about algorithmic fairness, there has been an explosion in papers laying out new metrics, suggesting algorithms to address issues, and calling attention to issues in existing applications of machine learning. This research has greatly expanded our understanding of the concerns and challenges in deploying machine learning, but there has been much less work in seeing how the rubber meets the road. In this paper we provide a case-study on the application of fairness in machine learning research to a production classification system, and offer new insights in how to measure and address algorithmic fairness issues. We discuss open questions in implementing equality of opportunity and describe our fairness metric, conditional equality, that takes into account distributional differences. Further, we provide a new approach to improve on the fairness metric during model training and demonstrate its efficacy in improving performance for a real-world product.
Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Allison Woodruff, Christine Luu, Pierre Kreitmann, Jonathan Bischof, Ed H. Chi
AIES3
2019 Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons
abstract
Recommender systems are one of the most pervasive applications of machine learning in industry, with many services using them to match users to products or information. As such it is important to ask: what are the possible fairness risks, how can we quantify them, and how should we address them? In this paper we offer a set of novel metrics for evaluating algorithmic fairness concerns in recommender systems. In particular we show how measuring fairness based on pairwise comparisons from randomized experiments provides a tractable means to reason about fairness in rankings from recommender systems. Building on this metric, we offer a new regularizer to encourage improving this metric during model training and thus improve fairness in the resulting rankings. We apply this pairwise regularization to a large-scale, production recommender system and show that we are able to significantly improve the system's pairwise fairness.
Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Lukasz Heldt, Zhe Zhao 0001, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, Cristos Goodrow
KDD3
2017 Flash Organizations: Crowdsourcing Complex Work by Structuring Crowds As Organizations
abstract
This paper introduces flash organizations: crowds structured like organizations to achieve complex and open-ended goals. Microtask workflows, the dominant crowdsourcing structures today, only enable goals that are so simple and modular that their path can be entirely pre-defined. We present a system that organizes crowd workers into computationally-represented structures inspired by those used in organizations - roles, teams, and hierarchies - which support emergent and adaptive coordination toward open-ended goals. Our system introduces two technical contributions: 1) encoding the crowd's division of labor into de-individualized roles, much as movie crews or disaster response teams use roles to support coordination between on-demand workers who have not worked together before; and 2) reconfiguring these structures through a model inspired by version control, enabling continuous adaptation of the work and the division of labor. We report a deployment in which flash organizations successfully carried out open-ended and complex goals previously out of reach for crowdsourcing, including product design, software development, and game production. This research demonstrates digitally networked organizations that flexibly assemble and reassemble themselves from a globally distributed online workforce to accomplish complex work.
Melissa A. Valentine, Daniela Retelny, Alexandra To, Negar Rahmati, Tulsee Doshi, Michael S. Bernstein
CHI5
2014 Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams
abstract
We introduce flash teams, a framework for dynamically assembling and managing paid experts from the crowd. Flash teams advance a vision of expert crowd work that accomplishes complex, interdependent goals such as engineering and design. These teams consist of sequences of linked modular tasks and handoffs that can be computationally managed. Interactive systems reason about and manipulate these teams' structures: for example, flash teams can be recombined to form larger organizations and authored automatically in response to a user's request. Flash teams can also hire more people elastically in reaction to task needs, and pipeline intermediate output to accelerate completion times. To enable flash teams, we present Foundry, an end-user authoring platform and runtime manager. Foundry allows users to author modular tasks, then manages teams through handoffs of intermediate work. We demonstrate that Foundry and flash teams enable crowdsourcing of a broad class of goals including design prototyping, course development, and film animation, in half the work time of traditional self-managed teams.
Daniela Retelny, Sébastien Robaszkiewicz, Alexandra To, Walter S. Lasecki, Negar Rahmati, Tulsee Doshi, Melissa A. Valentine, Michael S. Bernstein
UIST7