arXiv subjects

Evan Dong

Publications and source records attributed to Evan Dong.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Gender Prediction Is Illegitimate, But Gender Imputation Can Yield Valid Measurements

Machine learning ethics researchers and critical HCI scholars have argued that algorithmically predicting gender is wrong. At the same time, other researchers rely on predicted gender labels to study gender disparities and develop algorithmic fairness techniques. How do we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory intuitions? We differentiate two ways gender prediction may be wrong: being illegitimate, thereby contributing to harm; and being invalid, thereby producing unusable measurements. Our analysis translates arguments against gender prediction into these terms of legitimacy and validity and shows how gender imputation applied for fairness purposes can be illegitimate yet still yield valid disparity measurements. We clarify this bind by drawing upon transfeminist literature to distinguish sexism that targets women and femininity from sexism that targets transgender and nonbinary people. While gender imputation can produce valid measurements for the former, it is illegitimate and harmful for the latter. We argue that practitioners should deploy gender imputation only when it would achieve anti-discrimination benefits that cannot be achieved through other reasonable means, while harms are minimized to the extent possible. We examine this tension in three case studies: auditing gender bias in generative image models, measuring gender disparities in film, and imputing gender from personal names. By disentangling legitimacy from validity, and differentiating these two forms of sexism, we show how debates over gender prediction have conflated distinct concerns, obscuring both the settings in which gender imputation can support fairness efforts and the harms towards transgender and nonbinary people that it fundamentally cannot capture. We conclude by recommending the development of more inclusive methods that address all kinds of sexism.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Capacity Constraints Make Admissions Processes Less Predictable

Machine learning models are often used to make predictions about admissions process outcomes, such as for colleges or jobs. However, such decision processes differ substantially from the conventional machine learning paradigm. Because admissions decisions are capacity-constrained, whether a student is admitted depends on the other applicants who apply. We show how this dependence affects predictive performance even in otherwise ideal settings. Theoretically, we introduce two concepts that characterize the relationship between admission function properties, machine learning representation, and generalization to applicant pool distribution shifts: instability, which measures how many existing decisions can change when a single new applicant is introduced; and variability, which measures the number of unique students whose decisions can change. Empirically, we illustrate our theory on individual-level admissions data from the New York City high school matching system, showing that machine learning performance degrades as the applicant pool increasingly differs from the training data. Furthermore, there are larger performance drops for schools using decision rules that are more unstable and variable. Our work raises questions about the reliability of predicting individual admissions probabilities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Addressing Discretization-Induced Bias in Demographic Prediction

Racial and other demographic imputation is necessary for many applications, especially in auditing disparities and outreach targeting in political campaigns. The canonical approach is to construct continuous predictions -- e.g., based on name and geography -- and then to $\textit{discretize}$ the predictions by selecting the most likely class (argmax). We study how this practice produces $\textit{discretization bias}$. In particular, we show that argmax labeling, as used by a prominent commercial voter file vendor to impute race/ethnicity, results in a substantial under-count of African-American voters, e.g., by 28.2% points in North Carolina. This bias can have substantial implications in downstream tasks that use such labels. We then introduce a $\textit{joint optimization}$ approach -- and a tractable $\textit{data-driven thresholding}$ heuristic -- that can eliminate this bias, with negligible individual-level accuracy loss. Finally, we theoretically analyze discretization bias, show that calibrated continuous models are insufficient to eliminate it, and that an approach such as ours is necessary. Broadly, we warn researchers and practitioners against discretizing continuous demographic predictions without considering downstream consequences.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Accounting for AI and Users Shaping One Another: The Role of Mathematical Models

As AI systems enter into a growing number of societal domains, these systems increasingly shape and are shaped by user preferences, opinions, and behaviors. However, the design of AI systems rarely accounts for how AI and users shape one another. In this position paper, we argue for the development of formal interaction models which mathematically specify how AI and users shape one another. Formal interaction models can be leveraged to (1) specify interactions for implementation, (2) monitor interactions through empirical analysis, (3) anticipate societal impacts via counterfactual analysis, and (4) control societal impacts via interventions. The design space of formal interaction models is vast, and model design requires careful consideration of factors such as style, granularity, mathematical complexity, and measurability. Using content recommender systems as a case study, we critically examine the nascent literature of formal interaction models with respect to these use-cases and design axes. More broadly, we call for the community to leverage formal interaction models when designing, evaluating, or auditing any AI system which interacts with users.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

AI and the EU Digital Markets Act: Addressing the Risks of Bigness in Generative AI

As AI technology advances rapidly, concerns over the risks of bigness in digital markets are also growing. The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to address these risks. Still, the current framework may not adequately cover generative AI systems that could become gateways for AI-based services. This paper argues for integrating certain AI software as core platform services and classifying certain developers as gatekeepers under the DMA. We also propose an assessment of gatekeeper obligations to ensure they cover generative AI services. As the EU considers generative AI-specific rules and possible DMA amendments, this paper provides insights towards diversity and openness in generative AI services.

cs.CY↗