The Dawn of Fully Automated Contract Drafting: Machine Learning Breathes New Life Into a Decades-Old Promise

Technological advances within contract drafting software have seemingly plateaued. Despite the decades-long hopes and promises of many commentators, critics doubt this technology will ever fully automate the drafting process. But, while there has been a lack of innovation in contract drafting software, technological advances have continued to improve contract review and analysis programs. “Machine learning,” the leading innovative force in these areas, has proven incredibly efficient, performing in mere minutes tasks that would otherwise take a team of lawyers tens of hours. Some contract drafting programs have already experimented with machine learning capabilities, and this technology may pave the way for the full automation of contract drafting. Although intellectual property, data access, and ethical obstacles may delay complete integration of machine learning into contract drafting, full automation is likely still viable

On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection

Humans are the final decision makers in critical tasks that involve ethical and legal concerns, ranging from recidivism prediction, to medical diagnosis, to fighting against fake news. Although machine learning models can sometimes achieve impressive performance in these tasks, these tasks are not amenable to full automation. To realize the potential of machine learning for improving human decisions, it is important to understand how assistance from machine learning models affects human performance and human agency. In this paper, we use deception detection as a testbed and investigate how we can harness explanations and predictions of machine learning models to improve human performance while retaining human agency. We propose a spectrum between full human agency and full automation, and develop varying levels of machine assistance along the spectrum that gradually increase the influence of machine predictions. We find that without showing predicted labels, explanations alone slightly improve human performance in the end task. In comparison, human performance is greatly improved by showing predicted labels (>20% relative improvement) and can be further improved by explicitly suggesting strong machine performance. Interestingly, when predicted labels are shown, explanations of machine predictions induce a similar level of accuracy as an explicit statement of strong machine performance. Our results demonstrate a tradeoff between human performance and human agency and show that explanations of machine predictions can moderate this tradeoff.Comment: 17 pages, 19 figures, in Proceedings of ACM FAT* 2019, dataset & demo available at https://deception.machineintheloop.co

Automatic generation of hardware Tree Classifiers

Machine Learning is growing in popularity and spreading across different fields for various applications. Due to this trend, machine learning algorithms use different hardware platforms and are being experimented to obtain high test accuracy and throughput. FPGAs are well-suited hardware platform for machine learning because of its re-programmability and lower power consumption. Programming using FPGAs for machine learning algorithms requires substantial engineering time and effort compared to software implementation. We propose a software assisted design flow to program FPGA for machine learning algorithms using our hardware library. The hardware library is highly parameterized and it accommodates Tree Classifiers. As of now, our library consists of the components required to implement decision trees and random forests. The whole automation is wrapped around using a python script which takes you from the first step of having a dataset and design choices to the last step of having a hardware descriptive code for the trained machine learning model

A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies?

Background Although many aspects of systematic reviews use computational tools, systematic reviewers have been reluctant to adopt machine learning tools. Discussion We discuss that the potential reason for the slow adoption of machine learning tools into systematic reviews is multifactorial. We focus on the current absence of trust in automation and set-up challenges as major barriers to adoption. It is important that reviews produced using automation tools are considered non-inferior or superior to current practice. However, this standard will likely not be sufficient to lead to widespread adoption. As with many technologies, it is important that reviewers see “others” in the review community using automation tools. Adoption will also be slow if the automation tools are not compatible with workflows and tasks currently used to produce reviews. Many automation tools being developed for systematic reviews mimic classification problems. Therefore, the evidence that these automation tools are non-inferior or superior can be presented using methods similar to diagnostic test evaluations, i.e., precision and recall compared to a human reviewer. However, the assessment of automation tools does present unique challenges for investigators and systematic reviewers, including the need to clarify which metrics are of interest to the systematic review community and the unique documentation challenges for reproducible software experiments. Conclusion We discuss adoption barriers with the goal of providing tool developers with guidance as to how to design and report such evaluations and for end users to assess their validity. Further, we discuss approaches to formatting and announcing publicly available datasets suitable for assessment of automation technologies and tools. Making these resources available will increase trust that tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice. Finally, we identify that, even with evidence that automation tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice, substantial set-up challenges remain for main stream integration of automation into the systematic review process

Machine learning in incident categorization automation

IT incident management process requires a correct categorization to attribute incident tickets to the right resolution group and obtain an operational system as quickly as possible, having the lowest possible impact on the business and costumers. In this work, we introduce a module to automatically categorize incident tickets, turning the responsible teams for incident management more productive. This module can be integrated as an extension into an incident ticket system (ITS), which contributes to reduce the time wasted on incident ticket route and reduce the amount of errors on incident categorization. To automate the classification, we use a support vector machine (SVM), obtaining an accuracy of 89%, approximately, on a dataset of real-world incident tickets.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio