arXiv subjects

Derek Ouyang

Publications and source records attributed to Derek Ouyang.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Learning When Not to Decide: A Framework for Overcoming Factual Presumptuousness in AI Adjudication

A well-known limitation of AI systems is presumptuousness: the tendency of AI systems to provide confident answers when information may be lacking. This challenge is particularly acute in legal applications, where a core task for attorneys, judges, and administrators is to determine whether evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. We study this problem in the important setting of unemployment insurance adjudication, which has seen rapid integration of AI systems and where the question of additional fact-finding poses the most significant bottleneck for a system that affects millions of applicants annually. First, through a collaboration with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, we secure rare access to official training materials and guidance to design a novel benchmark that systematically varies in information completeness. Second, we evaluate four leading AI platforms and show that standard RAG-based approaches achieve an average of only 15% accuracy when information is insufficient. Third, advanced prompting methods improve accuracy on inconclusive cases but over-correct, withholding decisions even on clear cases. Fourth, we introduce a structured framework requiring explicit identification of missing information before any determination (SPEC, Structured Prompting for Evidence Checklists). SPEC achieves 89% overall accuracy, while appropriately deferring when evidence is insufficient -- demonstrating that presumptuousness in legal AI is systematic but addressable, and that doing so is a necessary step towards systems that reliably support, rather than supplant, human judgment wherever decisions must await sufficient evidence.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Legal RAG: The Promise and Limits of AI Statutory Surveys

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offers significant potential for legal AI, yet systematic benchmarks are sparse. Prior work introduced LaborBench to benchmark RAG models based on ostensible ground truth from an exhaustive, multi-month, manual enumeration of all U.S. state unemployment insurance requirements by U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) attorneys. That prior work found poor performance of standard RAG (70% accuracy on Boolean tasks). Here, we assess three emerging tools not previously evaluated on LaborBench: the Statutory Research Assistant (STARA), a custom statutory research tool, and two commercial tools by Westlaw and LexisNexis marketing AI statutory survey capabilities. We make five main contributions. First, we show that STARA achieves substantial performance gains, boosting accuracy to 83%. Second, we show that commercial platforms fare poorly, with accuracy of 58% (Westlaw AI) and 64% (Lexis+ AI), even worse than standard RAG. Third, we conduct a comprehensive error analysis, comparing our outputs to those compiled by DOL attorneys, and document both reasoning errors, such as confusion between related legal concepts and misinterpretation of statutory exceptions, and retrieval failures, where relevant statutory provisions are not captured. Fourth, we discover that many apparent errors are actually significant omissions by DOL attorneys themselves, such that STARA's actual accuracy is 92%. Fifth, we chart the path forward for legal RAG through concrete design principles, offering actionable guidance for building AI systems capable of accurate multi-jurisdictional legal research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Bias Delayed is Bias Denied? Assessing the Effect of Reporting Delays on Disparity Assessments

Conducting disparity assessments at regular time intervals is critical for surfacing potential biases in decision-making and improving outcomes across demographic groups. Because disparity assessments fundamentally depend on the availability of demographic information, their efficacy is limited by the availability and consistency of available demographic identifiers. While prior work has considered the impact of missing data on fairness, little attention has been paid to the role of delayed demographic data. Delayed data, while eventually observed, might be missing at the critical point of monitoring and action -- and delays may be unequally distributed across groups in ways that distort disparity assessments. We characterize such impacts in healthcare, using electronic health records of over 5M patients across primary care practices in all 50 states. Our contributions are threefold. First, we document the high rate of race and ethnicity reporting delays in a healthcare setting and demonstrate widespread variation in rates at which demographics are reported across different groups. Second, through a set of retrospective analyses using real data, we find that such delays impact disparity assessments and hence conclusions made across a range of consequential healthcare outcomes, particularly at more granular levels of state-level and practice-level assessments. Third, we find limited ability of conventional methods that impute missing race in mitigating the effects of reporting delays on the accuracy of timely disparity assessments. Our insights and methods generalize to many domains of algorithmic fairness where delays in the availability of sensitive information may confound audits, thus deserving closer attention within a pipeline-aware machine learning framework.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Quantifying the Uncertainty of Imputed Demographic Disparity Estimates: The Dual-Bootstrap

Measuring average differences in an outcome across racial or ethnic groups is a crucial first step for equity assessments, but researchers often lack access to data on individuals' races and ethnicities to calculate them. A common solution is to impute the missing race or ethnicity labels using proxies, then use those imputations to estimate the disparity. Conventional standard errors mischaracterize the resulting estimate's uncertainty because they treat the imputation model as given and fixed, instead of as an unknown object that must be estimated with uncertainty. We propose a dual-bootstrap approach that explicitly accounts for measurement uncertainty and thus enables more accurate statistical inference, which we demonstrate via simulation. In addition, we adapt our approach to the commonly used Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) imputation algorithm, where direct bootstrapping is infeasible because the underlying Census Bureau data are unavailable. In simulations, we find that measurement uncertainty is generally insignificant for BISG except in particular circumstances; bias, not variance, is likely the predominant source of error. We apply our method to quantify the uncertainty of prevalence estimates of common health conditions by race using data from the American Family Cohort.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Potential for allocative harm in an environmental justice data tool

Neighborhood-level screening algorithms are increasingly being deployed to inform policy decisions. We evaluate one such algorithm, CalEnviroScreen - designed to promote environmental justice and used to guide hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding annually - assessing its potential for allocative harm. We observe the model to be sensitive to subjective model decisions, with 16% of tracts potentially changing designation, as well as financially consequential, estimating the effect of its positive designations as a 104% (62-145%) increase in funding, equivalent to \$2.08 billion (\$1.56-2.41 billion) over four years. We also observe allocative tradeoffs and susceptibility to manipulation, raising ethical concerns. We recommend incorporating sensitivity analyses to mitigate allocative harm and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy

Anonymized smartphone-based mobility data has been widely adopted in devising and evaluating COVID-19 response strategies such as the targeting of public health resources. Yet little attention has been paid to measurement validity and demographic bias, due in part to the lack of documentation about which users are represented as well as the challenge of obtaining ground truth data on unique visits and demographics. We illustrate how linking large-scale administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias in the absence of demographic information and ground truth labels. More precisely, we show that linking voter roll data -- containing individual-level voter turnout for specific voting locations along with race and age -- can facilitate the construction of rigorous bias and reliability tests. These tests illuminate a sampling bias that is particularly noteworthy in the pandemic context: older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups.

stat.AP↗