arXiv subjects

Johann D. Gaebler

Publications and source records attributed to Johann D. Gaebler.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

From Constitutions to Control: Interpretable Rewards for Aligning Language Models

Current approaches to aligning language models often make it hard to know what behavior is being rewarded or to change that reward in a targeted way. In particular, standard preference-based methods collapse multiple considerations into aggregate human judgments, obscuring what drives the resulting reward, while principle-based methods specify high-level values without fully operationalizing them. To address this gap, we develop a rubric-based framework to transform a general-purpose constitution into an interpretable and tunable reward model, using constitution-guided AI feedback to estimate initial weights for the constituent rubric items. We then reweight those dimensions to construct modified rewards for training. Across experiments on political alignment and safety-helpfulness tradeoffs, reweighting individual dimensions predictably changes targeted behaviors largely independently while navigating tradeoffs between conflicting alignment objectives. We show that the same framework can mitigate label bias encoded in preference judgments -- including sycophancy and demographic bias -- by reducing their influence on the training reward. Our results demonstrate that constitution-derived, interpretable rewards can translate high-level alignment principles into more transparent and controllable model behavior.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

AI-written admissions essays are widespread but penalized

AI is rapidly transforming higher education, including the application process, yet relatively little is known about its use and consequences. To help close this gap, we analyze nearly 7{,}500 applications submitted between 2020 and 2025 to a large public policy master's program in the United States. We find that in the 2025 admissions cycle, the majority of applicants submitted at least one essay that was primarily AI-generated---despite an explicit prohibition against using AI. Leveraging the abrupt introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022, we find that the availability of AI assistants improved the writing quality of submitted essays. These improvements, however, came with an apparent AI penalty: Applicants submitting AI-written essays were admitted less often than comparable non-users. To help explain this penalty, we conduct an experiment with admissions officers, finding that they can often recognize AI writing and rate essays they believe to be AI-generated lower than essays they believe to be human generated. These findings indicate that AI is changing both how applicants write and how that writing is evaluated, raising questions about whether admissions practices and policies designed for a pre-AI era remain appropriate.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Mitigating Label Bias with Interpretable Rubric Embeddings

Statistical decision algorithms are increasingly deployed in domains where ground-truth labels are hard to obtain, such as hiring, university admissions, and content moderation. In these settings, models are typically trained on historical human evaluations -- for example, using past hiring decisions as a proxy for true applicant quality. However, if past evaluations unjustly favor certain groups, models trained on these labels may inherit those biases. To address this problem, we propose basing predictions on rubric embeddings, a representation framework that replaces standard black-box embeddings with features derived from expert-defined criteria that align with the underlying construct of interest. By anchoring predictions to semantically meaningful dimensions, this approach guards against biased proxy signals. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence that rubric embeddings mitigate label bias under plausible conditions. Empirically, we evaluate our method on a novel dataset of applications to a large master's program. We find that models trained on rubric embeddings reduce group disparities while improving measures of cohort quality. Our results suggest that basing predictions on interpretable, domain-grounded representations offers a practical approach to learning in the presence of biased labels.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

A Simple, Statistically Robust Test of Discrimination

In observational studies of discrimination, the most common statistical approaches consider either the rate at which decisions are made (benchmark tests) or the success rate of those decisions (outcome tests). Both tests, however, have well-known statistical limitations, sometimes suggesting discrimination even when there is none. Despite the fallibility of the benchmark and outcome tests individually, here we prove a surprisingly strong statistical guarantee: under a common non-parametric assumption, at least one of the two tests must be correct; consequently, when both tests agree, they are guaranteed to yield correct conclusions. We present empirical evidence that the underlying assumption holds approximately in several important domains, including lending, education, and criminal justice -- and that our hybrid test is robust to the moderate violations of the assumption that we observe in practice. Applying this approach to 2.8 million police stops across California, we find evidence of widespread racial discrimination.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2024

Auditing the Use of Language Models to Guide Hiring Decisions

Regulatory efforts to protect against algorithmic bias have taken on increased urgency with rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), which are machine learning models that can achieve performance rivaling human experts on a wide array of tasks. A key theme of these initiatives is algorithmic "auditing," but current regulations -- as well as the scientific literature -- provide little guidance on how to conduct these assessments. Here we propose and investigate one approach for auditing algorithms: correspondence experiments, a widely applied tool for detecting bias in human judgements. In the employment context, correspondence experiments aim to measure the extent to which race and gender impact decisions by experimentally manipulating elements of submitted application materials that suggest an applicant's demographic traits, such as their listed name. We apply this method to audit candidate assessments produced by several state-of-the-art LLMs, using a novel corpus of applications to K-12 teaching positions in a large public school district. We find evidence of moderate race and gender disparities, a pattern largely robust to varying the types of application material input to the models, as well as the framing of the task to the LLMs. We conclude by discussing some important limitations of correspondence experiments for auditing algorithms.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2024

Mitigating Included- and Omitted-Variable Bias in Estimates of Disparate Impact

Managers, employers, policymakers, and others often seek to understand whether decisions are biased against certain groups. One popular analytic strategy is to estimate disparities after adjusting for observed covariates, typically with a regression model. This approach, however, suffers from two key statistical challenges. First, omitted-variable bias can skew results if the model does not adjust for all relevant factors; second, and conversely, included-variable bias -- a lesser-known phenomenon -- can skew results if the set of covariates includes irrelevant factors. Here we introduce a new, three-step statistical method, which we call risk-adjusted regression, to address both concerns in settings where decision makers have clearly measurable objectives. In the first step, we use all available covariates to estimate the value, or inversely, the risk, of taking a certain action, such as approving a loan application or hiring a job candidate. Second, we measure disparities in decisions after adjusting for these risk estimates alone, mitigating the problem of included-variable bias. Finally, in the third step, we assess the sensitivity of results to potential mismeasurement of risk, addressing concerns about omitted-variable bias. To do so, we develop a novel, non-parametric sensitivity analysis that yields tight bounds on the true disparity in terms of the average gap between true and estimated risk -- a single interpretable parameter that facilitates credible estimates. We demonstrate this approach on a detailed dataset of 2.2 million police stops of pedestrians in New York City, and show that traditional statistical tests of discrimination can substantially underestimate the magnitude of disparities.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2023

The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness

The field of fair machine learning aims to ensure that decisions guided by algorithms are equitable. Over the last decade, several formal, mathematical definitions of fairness have gained prominence. Here we first assemble and categorize these definitions into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions typically result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies. For example, in the case of college admissions, adhering to popular formal conceptions of fairness would simultaneously result in lower student-body diversity and a less academically prepared class, relative to what one could achieve by explicitly tailoring admissions policies to achieve desired outcomes. In this sense, requiring that these fairness definitions hold can, perversely, harm the very groups they were designed to protect. In contrast to axiomatic notions of fairness, we argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences, akin to the equitable design of policy. We conclude by listing several open challenges in fair machine learning and offering strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals.

cs.CY↗