arXiv subjects

Alice Xiang

Publications and source records attributed to Alice Xiang.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

Considerations for Ethical Speech Recognition Datasets

Speech AI Technologies are largely trained on publicly available datasets or by the massive web-crawling of speech. In both cases, data acquisition focuses on minimizing collection effort, without necessarily taking the data subjects' protection or user needs into consideration. This results to models that are not robust when used on users who deviate from the dominant demographics in the training set, discriminating individuals having different dialects, accents, speaking styles, and disfluencies. In this talk, we use automatic speech recognition as a case study and examine the properties that ethical speech datasets should possess towards responsible AI applications. We showcase diversity issues, inclusion practices, and necessary considerations that can improve trained models, while facilitating model explainability and protecting users and data subjects. We argue for the legal & privacy protection of data subjects, targeted data sampling corresponding to user demographics & needs, appropriate meta data that ensure explainability & accountability in cases of model failure, and the sociotechnical \& situated model design. We hope this talk can inspire researchers \& practitioners to design and use more human-centric datasets in speech technologies and other domains, in ways that empower and respect users, while improving machine learning models' robustness and utility.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

A View From Somewhere: Human-Centric Face Representations

Few datasets contain self-identified sensitive attributes, inferring attributes risks introducing additional biases, and collecting attributes can carry legal risks. Besides, categorical labels can fail to reflect the continuous nature of human phenotypic diversity, making it difficult to compare the similarity between same-labeled faces. To address these issues, we present A View From Somewhere (AVFS) -- a dataset of 638,180 human judgments of face similarity. We demonstrate the utility of AVFS for learning a continuous, low-dimensional embedding space aligned with human perception. Our embedding space, induced under a novel conditional framework, not only enables the accurate prediction of face similarity, but also provides a human-interpretable decomposition of the dimensions used in the human-decision making process, and the importance distinct annotators place on each dimension. We additionally show the practicality of the dimensions for collecting continuous attributes, performing classification, and comparing dataset attribute disparities.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

From Single-Visit to Multi-Visit Image-Based Models: Single-Visit Models are Enough to Predict Obstructive Hydronephrosis

Previous work has shown the potential of deep learning to predict renal obstruction using kidney ultrasound images. However, these image-based classifiers have been trained with the goal of single-visit inference in mind. We compare methods from video action recognition (i.e. convolutional pooling, LSTM, TSM) to adapt single-visit convolutional models to handle multiple visit inference. We demonstrate that incorporating images from a patient's past hospital visits provides only a small benefit for the prediction of obstructive hydronephrosis. Therefore, inclusion of prior ultrasounds is beneficial, but prediction based on the latest ultrasound is sufficient for patient risk stratification.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

Promises and Challenges of Causality for Ethical Machine Learning

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in causal reasoning for designing fair decision-making systems due to its compatibility with legal frameworks, interpretability for human stakeholders, and robustness to spurious correlations inherent in observational data, among other factors. The recent attention to causal fairness, however, has been accompanied with great skepticism due to practical and epistemological challenges with applying current causal fairness approaches in the literature. Motivated by the long-standing empirical work on causality in econometrics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences, in this paper we lay out the conditions for appropriate application of causal fairness under the "potential outcomes framework." We highlight key aspects of causal inference that are often ignored in the causal fairness literature. In particular, we discuss the importance of specifying the nature and timing of interventions on social categories such as race or gender. Precisely, instead of postulating an intervention on immutable attributes, we propose a shift in focus to their perceptions and discuss the implications for fairness evaluation. We argue that such conceptualization of the intervention is key in evaluating the validity of causal assumptions and conducting sound causal analysis including avoiding post-treatment bias. Subsequently, we illustrate how causality can address the limitations of existing fairness metrics, including those that depend upon statistical correlations. Specifically, we introduce causal variants of common statistical notions of fairness, and we make a novel observation that under the causal framework there is no fundamental disagreement between different notions of fairness. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments where we demonstrate our approach for evaluating and mitigating unfairness, specially when post-treatment variables are present.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Regulating Facial Processing Technologies: Tensions Between Legal and Technical Considerations in the Application of Illinois BIPA

Harms resulting from the development and deployment of facial processing technologies (FPT) have been met with increasing controversy. Several states and cities in the U.S. have banned the use of facial recognition by law enforcement and governments, but FPT are still being developed and used in a wide variety of contexts where they primarily are regulated by state biometric information privacy laws. Among these laws, the 2008 Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has generated a significant amount of litigation. Yet, with most BIPA lawsuits reaching settlements before there have been meaningful clarifications of relevant technical intricacies and legal definitions, there remains a great degree of uncertainty as to how exactly this law applies to FPT. What we have found through applications of BIPA in FPT litigation so far, however, points to potential disconnects between technical and legal communities. This paper analyzes what we know based on BIPA court proceedings and highlights these points of tension: areas where the technical operationalization of BIPA may create unintended and undesirable incentives for FPT development, as well as areas where BIPA litigation can bring to light the limitations of solely technical methods in achieving legal privacy values. These factors are relevant for (i) reasoning about biometric information privacy laws as a governing mechanism for FPT, (ii) assessing the potential harms of FPT, and (iii) providing incentives for the mitigation of these harms. By illuminating these considerations, we hope to empower courts and lawmakers to take a more nuanced approach to regulating FPT and developers to better understand privacy values in the current U.S. legal landscape.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

A Multistakeholder Approach Towards Evaluating AI Transparency Mechanisms

Given that there are a variety of stakeholders involved in, and affected by, decisions from machine learning (ML) models, it is important to consider that different stakeholders have different transparency needs. Previous work found that the majority of deployed transparency mechanisms primarily serve technical stakeholders. In our work, we want to investigate how well transparency mechanisms might work in practice for a more diverse set of stakeholders by conducting a large-scale, mixed-methods user study across a range of organizations, within a particular industry such as health care, criminal justice, or content moderation. In this paper, we outline the setup for our study.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

On the Validity of Arrest as a Proxy for Offense: Race and the Likelihood of Arrest for Violent Crimes

The risk of re-offense is considered in decision-making at many stages of the criminal justice system, from pre-trial, to sentencing, to parole. To aid decision makers in their assessments, institutions increasingly rely on algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs). These tools assess the likelihood that an individual will be arrested for a new criminal offense within some time window following their release. However, since not all crimes result in arrest, RAIs do not directly assess the risk of re-offense. Furthermore, disparities in the likelihood of arrest can potentially lead to biases in the resulting risk scores. Several recent validations of RAIs have therefore focused on arrests for violent offenses, which are viewed as being more accurate reflections of offending behavior. In this paper, we investigate biases in violent arrest data by analysing racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest for White and Black violent offenders. We focus our study on 2007--2016 incident-level data of violent offenses from 16 US states as recorded in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Our analysis shows that the magnitude and direction of the racial disparities depend on various characteristics of the crimes. In addition, our investigation reveals large variations in arrest rates across geographical locations and offense types. We discuss the implications of the observed disconnect between re-arrest and re-offense in the context of RAIs and the challenges around the use of data from NIBRS to correct for the sampling bias.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty

Algorithmic transparency entails exposing system properties to various stakeholders for purposes that include understanding, improving, and contesting predictions. Until now, most research into algorithmic transparency has predominantly focused on explainability. Explainability attempts to provide reasons for a machine learning model's behavior to stakeholders. However, understanding a model's specific behavior alone might not be enough for stakeholders to gauge whether the model is wrong or lacks sufficient knowledge to solve the task at hand. In this paper, we argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. First, we discuss methods for assessing uncertainty. Then, we characterize how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. Finally, we outline methods for displaying uncertainty to stakeholders and recommend how to collect information required for incorporating uncertainty into existing ML pipelines. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness. We aim to encourage researchers and practitioners to measure, communicate, and use uncertainty as a form of transparency.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

"What We Can't Measure, We Can't Understand": Challenges to Demographic Data Procurement in the Pursuit of Fairness

As calls for fair and unbiased algorithmic systems increase, so too does the number of individuals working on algorithmic fairness in industry. However, these practitioners often do not have access to the demographic data they feel they need to detect bias in practice. Even with the growing variety of toolkits and strategies for working towards algorithmic fairness, they almost invariably require access to demographic attributes or proxies. We investigated this dilemma through semi-structured interviews with 38 practitioners and professionals either working in or adjacent to algorithmic fairness. Participants painted a complex picture of what demographic data availability and use look like on the ground, ranging from not having access to personal data of any kind to being legally required to collect and use demographic data for discrimination assessments. In many domains, demographic data collection raises a host of difficult questions, including how to balance privacy and fairness, how to define relevant social categories, how to ensure meaningful consent, and whether it is appropriate for private companies to infer someone's demographics. Our research suggests challenges that must be considered by businesses, regulators, researchers, and community groups in order to enable practitioners to address algorithmic bias in practice. Critically, we do not propose that the overall goal of future work should be to simply lower the barriers to collecting demographic data. Rather, our study surfaces a swath of normative questions about how, when, and whether this data should be procured, and, in cases where it is not, what should still be done to mitigate bias.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness

While there has been a flurry of research in algorithmic fairness, what is less recognized is that modern antidiscrimination law may prohibit the adoption of such techniques. We make three contributions. First, we discuss how such approaches will likely be deemed "algorithmic affirmative action," posing serious legal risks of violating equal protection, particularly under the higher education jurisprudence. Such cases have increasingly turned toward anticlassification, demanding "individualized consideration" and barring formal, quantitative weights for race regardless of purpose. This case law is hence fundamentally incompatible with fairness in machine learning. Second, we argue that the government-contracting cases offer an alternative grounding for algorithmic fairness, as these cases permit explicit and quantitative race-based remedies based on historical discrimination by the actor. Third, while limited, this doctrinal approach also guides the future of algorithmic fairness, mandating that adjustments be calibrated to the entity's responsibility for historical discrimination causing present-day disparities. The contractor cases provide a legally viable path for algorithmic fairness under current constitutional doctrine but call for more research at the intersection of algorithmic fairness and causal inference to ensure that bias mitigation is tailored to specific causes and mechanisms of bias.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment

Explainable machine learning offers the potential to provide stakeholders with insights into model behavior by using various methods such as feature importance scores, counterfactual explanations, or influential training data. Yet there is little understanding of how organizations use these methods in practice. This study explores how organizations view and use explainability for stakeholder consumption. We find that, currently, the majority of deployments are not for end users affected by the model but rather for machine learning engineers, who use explainability to debug the model itself. There is thus a gap between explainability in practice and the goal of transparency, since explanations primarily serve internal stakeholders rather than external ones. Our study synthesizes the limitations of current explainability techniques that hamper their use for end users. To facilitate end user interaction, we develop a framework for establishing clear goals for explainability. We end by discussing concerns raised regarding explainability.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Machine Learning Explainability for External Stakeholders

As machine learning is increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts affecting people's livelihoods, there have been growing calls to open the black box and to make machine learning algorithms more explainable. Providing useful explanations requires careful consideration of the needs of stakeholders, including end-users, regulators, and domain experts. Despite this need, little work has been done to facilitate inter-stakeholder conversation around explainable machine learning. To help address this gap, we conducted a closed-door, day-long workshop between academics, industry experts, legal scholars, and policymakers to develop a shared language around explainability and to understand the current shortcomings of and potential solutions for deploying explainable machine learning in service of transparency goals. We also asked participants to share case studies in deploying explainable machine learning at scale. In this paper, we provide a short summary of various case studies of explainable machine learning, lessons from those studies, and discuss open challenges.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitions

Past literature has been effective in demonstrating ideological gaps in machine learning (ML) fairness definitions when considering their use in complex socio-technical systems. However, we go further to demonstrate that these definitions often misunderstand the legal concepts from which they purport to be inspired, and consequently inappropriately co-opt legal language. In this paper, we demonstrate examples of this misalignment and discuss the differences in ML terminology and their legal counterparts, as well as what both the legal and ML fairness communities can learn from these tensions. We focus this paper on U.S. anti-discrimination law since the ML fairness research community regularly references terms from this body of law.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2015

Assessing the Potential Impact of a Nationwide Class-Based Affirmative Action System

We examine the possible consequences of a change in law school admissions in the United States from an affirmative action system based on race to one based on socioeconomic class. Using data from the 1991-1996 Law School Admission Council Bar Passage Study, students were reassigned attendance by simulation to law school tiers by transferring the affirmative action advantage for black students to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The hypothetical academic outcomes for the students were then multiply-imputed to quantify the uncertainty of the resulting estimates. The analysis predicts dramatic decreases in the numbers of black students in top law school tiers, suggesting that class-based affirmative action is insufficient to maintain racial diversity in prestigious law schools. Furthermore, there appear to be no statistically significant changes in the graduation and bar passage rates of students in any demographic group. The results thus provide evidence that, other than increasing their representation in upper tiers, current affirmative action policies relative to a socioeconomic-based system neither substantially help nor harm minority academic outcomes, contradicting the predictions of the "mismatch" hypothesis, which asserts otherwise.

stat.AP↗