Showing 1–17 of 17 results for author: Coston, A

Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Use

Authors: Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein, Haiyi Zhu

Abstract: As public sector agencies rapidly introduce new AI tools in high-stakes domains like social services, it becomes critical to understand how decisions to adopt these tools are made in practice. We borrow from the anthropological practice to ``study up'' those in positions of power, and reorient our study of public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about… ▽ More As public sector agencies rapidly introduce new AI tools in high-stakes domains like social services, it becomes critical to understand how decisions to adopt these tools are made in practice. We borrow from the anthropological practice to ``study up'' those in positions of power, and reorient our study of public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about the role that AI tools will play in their agency. Through semi-structured interviews and design activities with 16 agency decision-makers, we examine how decisions about AI design and adoption are influenced by their interactions with and assumptions about other actors within these agencies (e.g., frontline workers and agency leaders), as well as those above (legal systems and contracted companies), and below (impacted communities). By centering these networks of power relations, our findings shed light on how infrastructural, legal, and social factors create barriers and disincentives to the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in decisions about AI design and adoption. Agency decision-makers desired more practical support for stakeholder involvement around public sector AI to help overcome the knowledge and power differentials they perceived between them and other stakeholders (e.g., frontline workers and impacted community members). Building on these findings, we discuss implications for future research and policy around actualizing participatory AI approaches in public sector contexts. △ Less

Submitted 20 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under Confounding

Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by maki… ▽ More Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by making strong assumptions about the data-generating mechanism. In this work, we propose a method to compare the predictive performance of decision policies under a variety of modern identification approaches from the causal inference and off-policy evaluation literatures (e.g., instrumental variable, marginal sensitivity model, proximal variable). Key to our method is the insight that there are regions of uncertainty that we can safely ignore in the policy comparison. We develop a practical approach for finite-sample estimation of regret intervals under no assumptions on the parametric form of the status quo policy. We verify our framework theoretically and via synthetic data experiments. We conclude with a real-world application using our framework to support a pre-deployment evaluation of a proposed modification to a healthcare enrollment policy. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2024; v1 submitted 31 March, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: ICML 2024

The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi-Stakeholder Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI Proposals

Authors: Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein

Abstract: Public sector agencies are rapidly deploying AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions in real-world contexts like child welfare, criminal justice, and public health. A growing body of work documents how these AI systems often fail to improve services in practice. These failures can often be traced to decisions made during the early stages of AI ideation and design, such as problem form… ▽ More Public sector agencies are rapidly deploying AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions in real-world contexts like child welfare, criminal justice, and public health. A growing body of work documents how these AI systems often fail to improve services in practice. These failures can often be traced to decisions made during the early stages of AI ideation and design, such as problem formulation. However, today, we lack systematic processes to support effective, early-stage decision-making about whether and under what conditions to move forward with a proposed AI project. To understand how to scaffold such processes in real-world settings, we worked with public sector agency leaders, AI developers, frontline workers, and community advocates across four public sector agencies and three community advocacy groups in the United States. Through an iterative co-design process, we created the Situate AI Guidebook: a structured process centered around a set of deliberation questions to scaffold conversations around (1) goals and intended use or a proposed AI system, (2) societal and legal considerations, (3) data and modeling constraints, and (4) organizational governance factors. We discuss how the guidebook's design is informed by participants' challenges, needs, and desires for improved deliberation processes. We further elaborate on implications for designing responsible AI toolkits in collaboration with public sector agency stakeholders and opportunities for future work to expand upon the guidebook. This design approach can be more broadly adopted to support the co-creation of responsible AI toolkits that scaffold key decision-making processes surrounding the use of AI in the public sector and beyond. △ Less

Submitted 5 March, 2024; v1 submitted 28 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Examining risks of racial biases in NLP tools for child protective services

Authors: Anjalie Field, Amanda Coston, Nupoor Gandhi, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, David Steier, Yulia Tsvetkov

Abstract: Although much literature has established the presence of demographic bias in natural language processing (NLP) models, most work relies on curated bias metrics that may not be reflective of real-world applications. At the same time, practitioners are increasingly using algorithmic tools in high-stakes settings, with particular recent interest in NLP. In this work, we focus on one such setting: chi… ▽ More Although much literature has established the presence of demographic bias in natural language processing (NLP) models, most work relies on curated bias metrics that may not be reflective of real-world applications. At the same time, practitioners are increasingly using algorithmic tools in high-stakes settings, with particular recent interest in NLP. In this work, we focus on one such setting: child protective services (CPS). CPS workers often write copious free-form text notes about families they are working with, and CPS agencies are actively seeking to deploy NLP models to leverage these data. Given well-established racial bias in this setting, we investigate possible ways deployed NLP is liable to increase racial disparities. We specifically examine word statistics within notes and algorithmic fairness in risk prediction, coreference resolution, and named entity recognition (NER). We document consistent algorithmic unfairness in NER models, possible algorithmic unfairness in coreference resolution models, and little evidence of exacerbated racial bias in risk prediction. While there is existing pronounced criticism of risk prediction, our results expose previously undocumented risks of racial bias in realistic information extraction systems, highlighting potential concerns in deploying them, even though they may appear more benign. Our work serves as a rare realistic examination of NLP algorithmic fairness in a potential deployed setting and a timely investigation of a specific risk associated with deploying NLP in CPS settings. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Comments: In 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '23)

Recentering Validity Considerations through Early-Stage Deliberations Around AI and Policy Design

Authors: Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein

Abstract: AI-based decision-making tools are rapidly spreading across a range of real-world, complex domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child welfare. A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. However, in real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering… ▽ More AI-based decision-making tools are rapidly spreading across a range of real-world, complex domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child welfare. A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. However, in real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering the design of associated organizational and public policies. Yet, considerations around how an AI tool may interface with policy are often only discussed retrospectively, after the tool is designed or deployed. In this short position paper, we discuss opportunities to promote multi-stakeholder deliberations around the design of AI-based technologies and associated policies, at the earliest stages of a new project. △ Less

Submitted 25 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Counterfactual Prediction Under Outcome Measurement Error

Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies c… ▽ More Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support. △ Less

Submitted 17 May, 2023; v1 submitted 21 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Comments: FAccT 2023

Ground(less) Truth: A Causal Framework for Proxy Labels in Human-Algorithm Decision-Making

Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Kenneth Holstein

Abstract: A growing literature on human-AI decision-making investigates strategies for combining human judgment with statistical models to improve decision-making. Research in this area often evaluates proposed improvements to models, interfaces, or workflows by demonstrating improved predictive performance on "ground truth" labels. However, this practice overlooks a key difference between human judgments a… ▽ More A growing literature on human-AI decision-making investigates strategies for combining human judgment with statistical models to improve decision-making. Research in this area often evaluates proposed improvements to models, interfaces, or workflows by demonstrating improved predictive performance on "ground truth" labels. However, this practice overlooks a key difference between human judgments and model predictions. Whereas humans reason about broader phenomena of interest in a decision -- including latent constructs that are not directly observable, such as disease status, the "toxicity" of online comments, or future "job performance" -- predictive models target proxy labels that are readily available in existing datasets. Predictive models' reliance on simplistic proxies makes them vulnerable to various sources of statistical bias. In this paper, we identify five sources of target variable bias that can impact the validity of proxy labels in human-AI decision-making tasks. We develop a causal framework to disentangle the relationship between each bias and clarify which are of concern in specific human-AI decision-making tasks. We demonstrate how our framework can be used to articulate implicit assumptions made in prior modeling work, and we recommend evaluation strategies for verifying whether these assumptions hold in practice. We then leverage our framework to re-examine the designs of prior human subjects experiments that investigate human-AI decision-making, finding that only a small fraction of studies examine factors related to target variable bias. We conclude by discussing opportunities to better address target variable bias in future research. △ Less

Submitted 25 May, 2023; v1 submitted 13 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Comments: FAccT 23'

Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding

Authors: Ashesh Rambachan, Amanda Coston, Edward Kennedy

Abstract: Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given choices made by human decision makers. We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional o… ▽ More Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given choices made by human decision makers. We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional on observed covariates and identified nuisance parameters, formalizing popular empirical strategies for imputing missing data such as proxy outcomes and instrumental variables. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands, such as the conditional likelihood of the outcome, a predictive algorithm's mean square error, true/false positive rate, and many others, under these assumptions. In an administrative dataset from a large Australian financial institution, we illustrate how varying assumptions on unobserved confounding leads to meaningful changes in default risk predictions and evaluations of credit scores across sensitive groups. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2024; v1 submitted 19 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithms

Authors: Amanda Coston, Anna Kawakami, Haiyi Zhu, Ken Holstein, Hoda Heidari

Abstract: Recent research increasingly brings to question the appropriateness of using predictive tools in complex, real-world tasks. While a growing body of work has explored ways to improve value alignment in these tools, comparatively less work has centered concerns around the fundamental justifiability of using these tools. This work seeks to center validity considerations in deliberations around whethe… ▽ More Recent research increasingly brings to question the appropriateness of using predictive tools in complex, real-world tasks. While a growing body of work has explored ways to improve value alignment in these tools, comparatively less work has centered concerns around the fundamental justifiability of using these tools. This work seeks to center validity considerations in deliberations around whether and how to build data-driven algorithms in high-stakes domains. Toward this end, we translate key concepts from validity theory to predictive algorithms. We apply the lens of validity to re-examine common challenges in problem formulation and data issues that jeopardize the justifiability of using predictive algorithms and connect these challenges to the social science discourse around validity. Our interdisciplinary exposition clarifies how these concepts apply to algorithmic decision making contexts. We demonstrate how these validity considerations could distill into a series of high-level questions intended to promote and document reflections on the legitimacy of the predictive task and the suitability of the data. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2023; v1 submitted 29 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: in IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) 2023

Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels

Authors: Amanda Coston, Ashesh Rambachan, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessments are used to inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. Often multiple predictive models deliver similar overall performance but differ markedly in their predictions for individual cases, an empirical phenomenon known as the "Rashomon Effect." These models may have different properties over various groups, and therefore have different predictive fairnes… ▽ More Algorithmic risk assessments are used to inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. Often multiple predictive models deliver similar overall performance but differ markedly in their predictions for individual cases, an empirical phenomenon known as the "Rashomon Effect." These models may have different properties over various groups, and therefore have different predictive fairness properties. We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance, or "the set of good models." Our framework addresses the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data in the setting where the selection decision and outcome are unconfounded given the observed data features. Our framework can be used to 1) replace an existing model with one that has better fairness properties; or 2) audit for predictive bias. We illustrate these uses cases on a real-world credit-scoring task and a recidivism prediction task. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2021; v1 submitted 1 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Comments: Added comparison methods to the empirical lending analysis

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

Authors: Amanda Coston, Neel Guha, Derek Ouyang, Lisa Lu, Alexandra Chouldechova, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2021; v1 submitted 13 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

Journal ref: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 173-184

Neural Topic Models with Survival Supervision: Jointly Predicting Time-to-Event Outcomes and Learning How Clinical Features Relate

Authors: George H. Chen, Linhong Li, Ren Zuo, Amanda Coston, Jeremy C. Weiss

Abstract: We present a neural network framework for learning a survival model to predict a time-to-event outcome while simultaneously learning a topic model that reveals feature relationships. In particular, we model each subject as a distribution over "topics", where a topic could, for instance, correspond to an age group, a disorder, or a disease. The presence of a topic in a subject means that specific c… ▽ More We present a neural network framework for learning a survival model to predict a time-to-event outcome while simultaneously learning a topic model that reveals feature relationships. In particular, we model each subject as a distribution over "topics", where a topic could, for instance, correspond to an age group, a disorder, or a disease. The presence of a topic in a subject means that specific clinical features are more likely to appear for the subject. Topics encode information about related features and are learned in a supervised manner to predict a time-to-event outcome. Our framework supports combining many different topic and survival models; training the resulting joint survival-topic model readily scales to large datasets using standard neural net optimizers with minibatch gradient descent. For example, a special case is to combine LDA with a Cox model, in which case a subject's distribution over topics serves as the input feature vector to the Cox model. We explain how to address practical implementation issues that arise when applying these neural survival-supervised topic models to clinical data, including how to visualize results to assist clinical interpretation. We study the effectiveness of our proposed framework on seven clinical datasets on predicting time until death as well as hospital ICU length of stay, where we find that neural survival-supervised topic models achieve competitive accuracy with existing approaches while yielding interpretable clinical topics that explain feature relationships. Our code is available at: https://github.com/georgehc/survival-topics △ Less

Submitted 4 June, 2024; v1 submitted 15 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: Accepted at the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine journal; preliminary conference version (see earlier arXiv draft) appeared in the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIME 2020)

Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding

Authors: Amanda Coston, Edward H. Kennedy, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithms are commonly used to predict outcomes under a particular decision or intervention, such as predicting whether an offender will succeed on parole if placed under minimal supervision. Generally, to learn such counterfactual prediction models from observational data on historical decisions and corresponding outcomes, one must measure all factors that jointly affect the outcomes and the dec… ▽ More Algorithms are commonly used to predict outcomes under a particular decision or intervention, such as predicting whether an offender will succeed on parole if placed under minimal supervision. Generally, to learn such counterfactual prediction models from observational data on historical decisions and corresponding outcomes, one must measure all factors that jointly affect the outcomes and the decision taken. Motivated by decision support applications, we study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data, but it is either undesirable or impermissible to use some such factors in the prediction model. We refer to this setting as runtime confounding. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results suggest that our method often outperforms competing approaches. We also present a validation procedure for evaluating the performance of counterfactual prediction methods. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2021; v1 submitted 30 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Journal ref: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol 33, 2020. pp. 4150--4162

Proceedings of NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Developing World: Challenges and Risks of ML4D

Authors: Maria De-Arteaga, Tejumade Afonja, Amanda Coston

Abstract: This is the proceedings of the 3rd ML4D workshop which was help in Vancouver, Canada on December 13, 2019 as part of the Neural Information Processing Systems conference. This is the proceedings of the 3rd ML4D workshop which was help in Vancouver, Canada on December 13, 2019 as part of the Neural Information Processing Systems conference. △ Less

Submitted 10 April, 2020; v1 submitted 1 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Conditional Learning of Fair Representations

Authors: Han Zhao, Amanda Coston, Tameem Adel, Geoffrey J. Gordon

Abstract: We propose a novel algorithm for learning fair representations that can simultaneously mitigate two notions of disparity among different demographic subgroups in the classification setting. Two key components underpinning the design of our algorithm are balanced error rate and conditional alignment of representations. We show how these two components contribute to ensuring accuracy parity and equa… ▽ More We propose a novel algorithm for learning fair representations that can simultaneously mitigate two notions of disparity among different demographic subgroups in the classification setting. Two key components underpinning the design of our algorithm are balanced error rate and conditional alignment of representations. We show how these two components contribute to ensuring accuracy parity and equalized false-positive and false-negative rates across groups without impacting demographic parity. Furthermore, we also demonstrate both in theory and on two real-world experiments that the proposed algorithm leads to a better utility-fairness trade-off on balanced datasets compared with existing algorithms on learning fair representations for classification. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2020; v1 submitted 16 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Counterfactual Risk Assessments, Evaluation, and Fairness

Authors: Amanda Coston, Alan Mishler, Edward H. Kennedy, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism… ▽ More Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism. Problematically, most tools are trained and evaluated on historical data in which the outcomes observed depend on the historical decision-making policy. These tools thus reflect risk under the historical policy, rather than under the different decision options that the tool is intended to inform. Even when tools are constructed to predict risk under a specific decision, they are often improperly evaluated as predictors of the target outcome. Focusing on the evaluation task, in this paper we define counterfactual analogues of common predictive performance and algorithmic fairness metrics that we argue are better suited for the decision-making context. We introduce a new method for estimating the proposed metrics using doubly robust estimation. We provide theoretical results that show that only under strong conditions can fairness according to the standard metric and the counterfactual metric simultaneously hold. Consequently, fairness-promoting methods that target parity in a standard fairness metric may --- and as we show empirically, do --- induce greater imbalance in the counterfactual analogue. We provide empirical comparisons on both synthetic data and a real world child welfare dataset to demonstrate how the proposed method improves upon standard practice. △ Less

Submitted 10 January, 2020; v1 submitted 30 August, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: To appear in ACM FAT* 2020

Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Developing World: Achieving Sustainable Impact

Authors: Maria De-Arteaga, Amanda Coston, William Herlands

Abstract: This is the Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Developing World: Achieving Sustainable Impact, held in Montreal, Canada on December 8, 2018 This is the Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Developing World: Achieving Sustainable Impact, held in Montreal, Canada on December 8, 2018 △ Less

Submitted 18 February, 2019; v1 submitted 20 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Comments: 18 papers in the proceedings. 10 additional papers were presented at the workshop but not included in the proceedings