When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.
In addition to the work mentioned in the Introduction, Lakkaraju et. al., ( lakkaraju2017selective ) showed that analyses of recidivism based on human decisions are further complicated by the selective labels'' problem, where observability of outcomes are affected by judges' release decisions. Other work studied how humans perceive different features as fair or not @cite_8 .
@cite_8
2745133928
Algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions about human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism. The sensitivity of these decisions has raised important questions about ensuring fairness in algorithmic decision making. Recent work has focused on addressing two aspects of fairness: distributional fairness, concerning the fairness of the outcomes of decision making, and procedural fairness, concerning the fairness of the decision-making process. Assessment of procedural fairness relies on human judgments, for example, about the fairness of using certain features in the algorithm making the decision. Yet to our knowledge, almost no prior work examines people’s perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making. We propose a framework for understanding why people perceive certain features as fair to be used in algorithms. We define a framework of eight underlying properties of features, such as relevance, volitionality and reliability, and hypothesize that people use these properties to form a heuristic for making moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making algorithms. We evaluate our framework through a series of scenario-based surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person’s assessment of the eight underlying properties in our exemplar scenario, we can predict if they will perceive a feature as fair to be used with at least 87 accuracy. Evaluating whether machines improve on human performance is one of the central questions of machine learning. However, there are many domains where the data is selectively labeled, in the sense that the observed outcomes are themselves a consequence of the existing choices of the human decision-makers. For instance, in the context of judicial bail decisions, we observe the outcome of whether a defendant fails to return for their court appearance only if the human judge decides to release the defendant on bail. This selective labeling makes it harder to evaluate predictive models as the instances for which outcomes are observed do not represent a random sample of the population. Here we propose a novel framework for evaluating the performance of predictive models on selectively labeled data. We develop an approach called contraction which allows us to compare the performance of predictive models and human decision-makers without resorting to counterfactual inference. Our methodology harnesses the heterogeneity of human decision-makers and facilitates effective evaluation of predictive models even in the presence of unmeasured confounders (unobservables) which influence both human decisions and the resulting outcomes. Experimental results on real world datasets spanning diverse domains such as health care, insurance, and criminal justice demonstrate the utility of our evaluation metric in comparing human decisions and machine predictions. From doctors diagnosing patients to judges setting bail, experts often base their decisions on experience and intuition rather than on statistical models. While understandable, relying on intuition over models has often been found to result in inferior outcomes. Here we present a new method, select-regress-and-round, for constructing simple rules that perform well for complex decisions. These rules take the form of a weighted checklist, can be applied mentally, and nonetheless rival the performance of modern machine learning algorithms. Our method for creating these rules is itself simple, and can be carried out by practitioners with basic statistics knowledge. We demonstrate this technique with a detailed case study of judicial decisions to release or detain defendants while they await trial. In this application, as in many policy settings, the effects of proposed decision rules cannot be directly observed from historical data: if a rule recommends releasing a defendant that the judge in reality detained, we do not observe what would have happened under the proposed action. We address this key counterfactual estimation problem by drawing on tools from causal inference. We find that simple rules significantly outperform judges and are on par with decisions derived from random forests trained on all available features. Generalizing to 22 varied decision-making domains, we find this basic result replicates. We conclude with an analytical framework that helps explain why these simple decision rules perform as well as they do. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning provide us with the tools to build predictive models that can be used to unveil patterns driving judicial decisions. This can be useful, for both lawyers and judges, as an assisting tool to rapidly identify cases and extract patterns which lead to certain decisions. This paper presents the first systematic study on predicting the outcome of cases tried by the European Court of Human Rights based solely on textual content. We formulate a binary classification task where the input of our classifiers is the textual content extracted from a case and the target output is the actual judgment as to whether there has been a violation of an article of the convention of human rights. Textual information is represented using contiguous word sequences, i.e., N-grams, and topics. Our models can predict the court’s decisions with a strong accuracy (79 on average). Our empirical analysis indicates that the formal facts of a case are the most important predictive factor. This is consistent with the theory of legal realism suggesting that judicial decision-making is significantly affected by the stimulus of the facts. We also observe that the topical content of a case is another important feature in this classification task and explore this relationship further by conducting a qualitative analysis. This article investigates whether deceptions in online dating profiles correlate with changes in the way daters write about themselves in the free-text portion of the profile, and whether these changes are detectable by both computerized linguistic analyses and human judges. Computerized analyses (Study 1) found that deceptions manifested themselves through linguistic cues pertaining to (a) liars’ emotions and cognitions and (b) liars’ strategic efforts to manage their self-presentations. Technological affordances (i.e., asynchronicity and editability) affected the production of cognitive cues more than that of emotional cues. Human judges (Study 2) relied on different and nonpredictive linguistic cues to assess daters’ trustworthiness. The findings inform theories concerned with deception, media, and self-presentation, and also expound on how writing style influences perceived trustworthiness. Complex statistical machine learning models are increasingly being used or considered for use in high-stakes decision-making pipelines in domains such as financial services, health care, criminal justice and human services. These models are often investigated as possible improvements over more classical tools such as regression models or human judgement. While the modeling approach may be new, the practice of using some form of risk assessment to inform decisions is not. When determining whether a new model should be adopted, it is therefore essential to be able to compare the proposed model to the existing approach across a range of task-relevant accuracy and fairness metrics. Looking at overall performance metrics, however, may be misleading. Even when two models have comparable overall performance, they may nevertheless disagree in their classifications on a considerable fraction of cases. In this paper we introduce a model comparison framework for automatically identifying subgroups in which the differences between models are most pronounced. Our primary focus is on identifying subgroups where the models differ in terms of fairness-related quantities such as racial or gender disparities. We present experimental results from a recidivism prediction task and a hypothetical lending example. In this paper we present an opinion summarization technique in spoken dialogue systems. Opinion mining has been well studied for years, but very few have considered its application in spoken dialogue systems. Review summarization, when applied to real dialogue systems, is much more complicated than pure text-based summarization. We conduct a systematic study on dialogue-system-oriented review analysis and propose a three-level framework for a recommendation dialogue system. In previous work we have explored a linguistic parsing approach to phrase extraction from reviews. In this paper we will describe an approach using statistical models such as decision trees and SVMs to select the most representative phrases from the extracted phrase set. We will also explain how to generate informative yet concise review summaries for dialogue purposes. Experimental results in the restaurant domain show that the proposed approach using decision tree algorithms achieves an outperformance of 13 compared to SVM models and an improvement of 36 over a heuristic rule baseline. Experiments also show that the decision-tree-based phrase selection model can achieve rather reliable predictions on the phrase label, comparable to human judgment. The proposed statistical approach is based on domain-independent learning features and can be extended to other domains effectively. A crucial skill for fluent action meshing in human team activity is a learned and calculated selection of anticipatory actions. We believe that the same holds for robotic teammates, if they are to perform in a similarly fluent manner with their human counterparts. In this work, we describe a model for human-robot joint action, and propose an adaptive action selection mechanism for a robotic teammate, which makes anticipatory decisions based on the confidence of their validity and their relative risk. We conduct an analysis of our method, predicting an improvement in task efficiency compared to a purely reactive process. We then present results from a study involving untrained human subjects working with a simulated version of a robot using our system. We show a significant improvement in best-case task efficiency when compared to a group of users working with a reactive agent, as well as a significant difference in the perceived commitment of the robot to the team and its contribution to the team's fluency and success. By way of explanation, we raise a number of fluency metric hypotheses, and evaluate their significance between the two study conditions. Abstract Recidivism prediction instruments (RPIs) provide decision-makers with an assessment of the likelihood that a criminal defendant will reoffend at a future point in time. Although such instruments are gaining increasing popularity across the country, their use is attracting tremendous controversy. Much of the controversy concerns potential discriminatory bias in the risk assessments that are produced. This article discusses several fairness criteria that have recently been applied to assess the fairness of RPIs. We demonstrate that the criteria cannot all be simultaneously satisfied when recidivism prevalence differs across groups. We then show how disparate impact can arise when an RPI fails to satisfy the criterion of error rate balance. Some decisions, such as predicting the winner of a baseball game, are challenging in part because outcomes are probabilistic. When making such decisions, one view is that humans stochastically and selectively retrieve a small set of relevant memories that provides evidence for competing options. We show that optimal performance at test is impossible when retrieving information in this fashion, no matter how extensive training is, because limited retrieval introduces noise into the decision process that cannot be overcome. One implication is that people should be more accurate in predicting future events when trained on idealized rather than on the actual distributions of items. In other words, we predict the best way to convey information to people is to present it in a distorted, idealized form. Idealization of training distributions is predicted to reduce the harmful noise induced by immutable bottlenecks in people’s memory retrieval processes. In contrast, machine learning systems that selectively weight (i.e., retrieve) all training examples at test should not benefit from idealization. These conjectures are strongly supported by several studies and supporting analyses. Unlike machine systems, people’s test performance on a target distribution is higher when they are trained on an idealized version of the distribution rather than on the actual target distribution. Optimal machine classifiers modified to selectively and stochastically sample from memory match the pattern of human performance. These results suggest firm limits on human rationality and have broad implications for how to train humans tasked with important classification decisions, such as radiologists, baggage screeners, intelligence analysts, and gamblers. Transparency can empower users to make informed choices about how they use an algorithmic decision-making system and judge its potential consequences. However, transparency is often conceptualized by the outcomes it is intended to bring about, not the specifics of mechanisms to achieve those outcomes. We conducted an online experiment focusing on how different ways of explaining Facebook's News Feed algorithm might affect participants' beliefs and judgments about the News Feed. We found that all explanations caused participants to become more aware of how the system works, and helped them to determine whether the system is biased and if they can control what they see. The explanations were less effective for helping participants evaluate the correctness of the system's output, and form opinions about how sensible and consistent its behavior is. We present implications for the design of transparency mechanisms in algorithmic decision-making systems based on these results. An obstacle to research in automatic paraphrase identification and generation is the lack of large-scale, publiclyavailable labeled corpora of sentential paraphrases. This paper describes the creation of the recently-released Microsoft Research Paraphrase Corpus, which contains 5801 sentence pairs, each hand-labeled with a binary judgment as to whether the pair constitutes a paraphrase. The corpus was created using heuristic extraction techniques in conjunction with an SVM-based classifier to select likely sentence-level paraphrases from a large corpus of topicclustered news data. These pairs were then submitted to human judges, who confirmed that 67 were in fact semantically equivalent. In addition to describing the corpus itself, we explore a number of issues that arose in defining guidelines for the human raters. The adoption of automated, data-driven decision making in an ever expanding range of applications has raised concerns about its potential unfairness towards certain social groups. In this context, a number of recent studies have focused on defining, detecting, and removing unfairness from data-driven decision systems. However, the existing notions of fairness, based on parity (equality) in treatment or outcomes for different social groups, tend to be quite stringent, limiting the overall decision making accuracy. In this paper, we draw inspiration from the fair-division and envy-freeness literature in economics and game theory and propose preference-based notions of fairness -- given the choice between various sets of decision treatments or outcomes, any group of users would collectively prefer its treatment or outcomes, regardless of the (dis)parity as compared to the other groups. Then, we introduce tractable proxies to design margin-based classifiers that satisfy these preference-based notions of fairness. Finally, we experiment with a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets and show that preference-based fairness allows for greater decision accuracy than parity-based fairness. Basic decisions, such as judging a person as a friend or foe, involve categorizing novel stimuli. Recent work finds that people's category judgments are guided by a small set of examples that are retrieved from memory at decision time. This limited and stochastic retrieval places limits on human performance for probabilistic classification decisions. In light of this capacity limitation, recent work finds that idealizing training items, such that the saliency of ambiguous cases is reduced, improves human performance on novel test items. One shortcoming of previous work in idealization is that category distributions were idealized in an ad hoc or heuristic fashion. In this contribution, we take a first principles approach to constructing idealized training sets. We apply a machine teaching procedure to a cognitive model that is either limited capacity (as humans are) or unlimited capacity (as most machine learning systems are). As predicted, we find that the machine teacher recommends idealized training sets. We also find that human learners perform best when training recommendations from the machine teacher are based on a limited-capacity model. As predicted, to the extent that the learning model used by the machine teacher conforms to the true nature of human learners, the recommendations of the machine teacher prove effective. Our results provide a normative basis (given capacity constraints) for idealization procedures and offer a novel selection procedure for models of human learning. Recommender Systems (RSs) help users search large amounts of digital contents and services by allowing them to identify the items that are likely to be more attractive or useful. RSs play an important persuasion role, as they can potentially augment the users’ trust towards in an application and orient their decisions or actions towards specific directions. This article explores the persuasiveness of RSs, presenting two vast empirical studies that address a number of research questions. First, we investigate if a design property of RSs, defined by the statistically measured quality of algorithms, is a reliable predictor of their potential for persuasion. This factor is measured in terms of perceived quality, defined by the overall satisfaction, as well as by how users judge the accuracy and novelty of recommendations. For our purposes, we designed an empirical study involving 210 subjects and implemented seven full-sized versions of a commercial RS, each one using the same interface and dataset (a subset of Netflix), but each with a different recommender algorithm. In each experimental configuration we computed the statistical quality (recall and F-measures) and collected data regarding the quality perceived by 30 users. The results show us that algorithmic attributes are less crucial than we might expect in determining the user’s perception of an RS’s quality, and suggest that the user’s judgment and attitude towards a recommender are likely to be more affected by factors related to the user experience. Second, we explore the persuasiveness of RSs in the context of large interactive TV services. We report a study aimed at assessing whether measurable persuasion effects (e.g., changes of shopping behavior) can be achieved through the introduction of a recommender. Our data, collected for more than one year, allow us to conclude that, (1) the adoption of an RS can affect both the lift factor and the conversion rate, determining an increased volume of sales and influencing the user’s decision to actually buy one of the recommended products, (2) the introduction of an RS tends to diversify purchases and orient users towards less obvious choices (the long tail), and (3) the perceived novelty of recommendations is likely to be more influential than their perceived accuracy. Overall, the results of these studies improve our understanding of the persuasion phenomena induced by RSs, and have implications that can be of interest to academic scholars, designers, and adopters of this class of systems. Algorithms are now regularly used to decide whether defendants awaiting trial are too dangerous to be released back into the community. In some cases, black defendants are substantially more likely than white defendants to be incorrectly classified as high risk. To mitigate such disparities, several techniques have recently been proposed to achieve algorithmic fairness. Here we reformulate algorithmic fairness as constrained optimization: the objective is to maximize public safety while satisfying formal fairness constraints designed to reduce racial disparities. We show that for several past definitions of fairness, the optimal algorithms that result require detaining defendants above race-specific risk thresholds. We further show that the optimal unconstrained algorithm requires applying a single, uniform threshold to all defendants. The unconstrained algorithm thus maximizes public safety while also satisfying one important understanding of equality: that all individuals are held to the same standard, irrespective of race. Because the optimal constrained and unconstrained algorithms generally differ, there is tension between improving public safety and satisfying prevailing notions of algorithmic fairness. By examining data from Broward County, Florida, we show that this trade-off can be large in practice. We focus on algorithms for pretrial release decisions, but the principles we discuss apply to other domains, and also to human decision makers carrying out structured decision rules. One problem facing players of competitive games is negative, or toxic, behavior. League of Legends, the largest eSport game, uses a crowdsourcing platform called the Tribunal to judge whether a reported toxic player should be punished or not. The Tribunal is a two stage system requiring reports from those players that directly observe toxic behavior, and human experts that review aggregated reports. While this system has successfully dealt with the vague nature of toxic behavior by majority rules based on many votes, it naturally requires tremendous cost, time, and human efforts. In this paper, we propose a supervised learning approach for predicting crowdsourced decisions on toxic behavior with large-scale labeled data collections; over 10 million user reports involved in 1.46 million toxic players and corresponding crowdsourced decisions. Our result shows good performance in detecting overwhelmingly majority cases and predicting crowdsourced decisions on them. We demonstrate good portability of our classifier across regions. Finally, we estimate the practical implications of our approach, potential cost savings and victim protection. Recently, ChaCha20 (the stream cipher ChaCha with 20 rounds) is in the process of being a standardized and thus it attracts serious interest in cryptanalysis. The most significant effort to analyse Salsa and ChaCha was explained by Aumasson et?al. long back (FSE 2008) and further, only minor improvements could be achieved. In this paper, first we revisit the work of Aumasson et?al. to provide a clearer insight of the existing attack (2248 complexity for ChaCha7, i.e.,?7 rounds) and show certain improvements (complexity around 2243) by exploiting additional Probabilistic Neutral Bits. More importantly, we describe a novel idea that explores proper choice of IVs corresponding to the keys, for which the complexity can be improved further (2239). The choice of IVs corresponding to the keys is the prime observation of this work. We systematically show how a single difference propagates after one round and how the differences can be reduced with proper choices of IVs. For Salsa too (Salsa20 8, i.e.,?8 rounds), we get improvement in complexity, reducing it to 2 245.5 from 2 247.2 reported by Aumasson et?al. An increasing number of domains are providing us with detailed trace data on human decisions in settings where we can evaluate the quality of these decisions via an algorithm. Motivated by this development, an emerging line of work has begun to consider whether we can characterize and predict the kinds of decisions where people are likely to make errors. To investigate what a general framework for human error prediction might look like, we focus on a model system with a rich history in the behavioral sciences: the decisions made by chess players as they select moves in a game. We carry out our analysis at a large scale, employing datasets with several million recorded games, and using chess tablebases to acquire a form of ground truth for a subset of chess positions that have been completely solved by computers but remain challenging even for the best players in the world. We organize our analysis around three categories of features that we argue are present in most settings where the analysis of human error is applicable: the skill of the decision-maker, the time available to make the decision, and the inherent difficulty of the decision. We identify rich structure in all three of these categories of features, and find strong evidence that in our domain, features describing the inherent difficulty of an instance are significantly more powerful than features based on skill or time. Real age estimation in still images of faces is an active area of research in the computer vision community. However, very few works attempted to analyse the apparent age as perceived by observers. Apparent age estimation is a subjective task, which is affected by many factors present in the image as well as by observer's characteristics. In this work, we enhance the APPA-REAL dataset, containing around 8K images with real and apparent ages, with new annotated attributes, namely gender, ethnic, makeup, and expression. Age and gender from a subset of guessers is also provided. We show there exists some consistent bias for a subset of these attributes when relating apparent to real age. In addition we run simple experiments with a basic Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) showing that considering apparent labels for training improves real age estimation rather than training with real ages. We also perform bias correction on CNN predictions, showing that it further enhance final age recognition performance.