Showing 1–13 of 13 results for author: Fogliato, R

Stronger Neyman Regret Guarantees for Adaptive Experimental Design

Authors: Georgy Noarov, Riccardo Fogliato, Martin Bertran, Aaron Roth

Abstract: We study the design of adaptive, sequential experiments for unbiased average treatment effect (ATE) estimation in the design-based potential outcomes setting. Our goal is to develop adaptive designs offering sublinear Neyman regret, meaning their efficiency must approach that of the hindsight-optimal nonadaptive design. Recent work [Dai et al, 2023] introduced ClipOGD, the first method achieving… ▽ More We study the design of adaptive, sequential experiments for unbiased average treatment effect (ATE) estimation in the design-based potential outcomes setting. Our goal is to develop adaptive designs offering sublinear Neyman regret, meaning their efficiency must approach that of the hindsight-optimal nonadaptive design. Recent work [Dai et al, 2023] introduced ClipOGD, the first method achieving $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ expected Neyman regret under mild conditions. In this work, we propose adaptive designs with substantially stronger Neyman regret guarantees. In particular, we modify ClipOGD to obtain anytime $\widetilde{O}(\log T)$ Neyman regret under natural boundedness assumptions. Further, in the setting where experimental units have pre-treatment covariates, we introduce and study a class of contextual "multigroup" Neyman regret guarantees: Given any set of possibly overlapping groups based on the covariates, the adaptive design outperforms each group's best non-adaptive designs. In particular, we develop a contextual adaptive design with $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ anytime multigroup Neyman regret. We empirically validate the proposed designs through an array of experiments. △ Less

Submitted 24 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Improving LLM Group Fairness on Tabular Data via In-Context Learning

Authors: Valeriia Cherepanova, Chia-Jung Lee, Nil-Jana Akpinar, Riccardo Fogliato, Martin Andres Bertran, Michael Kearns, James Zou

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective on tabular prediction tasks in the low-data regime, leveraging their internal knowledge and ability to learn from instructions and examples. However, LLMs can fail to generate predictions that satisfy group fairness, that is, produce equitable outcomes across groups. Critically, conventional debiasing approaches for natural language task… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective on tabular prediction tasks in the low-data regime, leveraging their internal knowledge and ability to learn from instructions and examples. However, LLMs can fail to generate predictions that satisfy group fairness, that is, produce equitable outcomes across groups. Critically, conventional debiasing approaches for natural language tasks do not directly translate to mitigating group unfairness in tabular settings. In this work, we systematically investigate four empirical approaches to improve group fairness of LLM predictions on tabular datasets, including fair prompt optimization, soft prompt tuning, strategic selection of few-shot examples, and self-refining predictions via chain-of-thought reasoning. Through experiments on four tabular datasets using both open-source and proprietary LLMs, we show the effectiveness of these methods in enhancing demographic parity while maintaining high overall performance. Our analysis provides actionable insights for practitioners in selecting the most suitable approach based on their specific requirements and constraints. △ Less

Submitted 5 December, 2024; originally announced December 2024.

Precise Model Benchmarking with Only a Few Observations

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Pratik Patil, Nil-Jana Akpinar, Mathew Monfort

Abstract: How can we precisely estimate a large language model's (LLM) accuracy on questions belonging to a specific topic within a larger question-answering dataset? The standard direct estimator, which averages the model's accuracy on the questions in each subgroup, may exhibit high variance for subgroups (topics) with small sample sizes. Synthetic regression modeling, which leverages the model's accuracy… ▽ More How can we precisely estimate a large language model's (LLM) accuracy on questions belonging to a specific topic within a larger question-answering dataset? The standard direct estimator, which averages the model's accuracy on the questions in each subgroup, may exhibit high variance for subgroups (topics) with small sample sizes. Synthetic regression modeling, which leverages the model's accuracy on questions about other topics, may yield biased estimates that are too unreliable for large subgroups. We prescribe a simple yet effective solution: an empirical Bayes (EB) estimator that balances direct and regression estimates for each subgroup separately, improving the precision of subgroup-level estimates of model performance. Our experiments on multiple datasets show that this approach consistently provides more precise estimates of the LLM performance compared to the direct and regression approaches, achieving substantial reductions in the mean squared error. Confidence intervals for EB estimates also have near-nominal coverage and are narrower compared to those for the direct estimator. Additional experiments on tabular and vision data validate the benefits of this EB approach. △ Less

Submitted 7 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Comments: To appear at EMNLP 2024

A Framework for Efficient Model Evaluation through Stratification, Sampling, and Estimation

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Pratik Patil, Mathew Monfort, Pietro Perona

Abstract: Model performance evaluation is a critical and expensive task in machine learning and computer vision. Without clear guidelines, practitioners often estimate model accuracy using a one-time completely random selection of the data. However, by employing tailored sampling and estimation strategies, one can obtain more precise estimates and reduce annotation costs. In this paper, we propose a statist… ▽ More Model performance evaluation is a critical and expensive task in machine learning and computer vision. Without clear guidelines, practitioners often estimate model accuracy using a one-time completely random selection of the data. However, by employing tailored sampling and estimation strategies, one can obtain more precise estimates and reduce annotation costs. In this paper, we propose a statistical framework for model evaluation that includes stratification, sampling, and estimation components. We examine the statistical properties of each component and evaluate their efficiency (precision). One key result of our work is that stratification via k-means clustering based on accurate predictions of model performance yields efficient estimators. Our experiments on computer vision datasets show that this method consistently provides more precise accuracy estimates than the traditional simple random sampling, even with substantial efficiency gains of 10x. We also find that model-assisted estimators, which leverage predictions of model accuracy on the unlabeled portion of the dataset, are generally more efficient than the traditional estimates based solely on the labeled data. △ Less

Submitted 18 July, 2024; v1 submitted 11 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: To appear at ECCV 2024

Multicalibration for Confidence Scoring in LLMs

Authors: Gianluca Detommaso, Martin Bertran, Riccardo Fogliato, Aaron Roth

Abstract: This paper proposes the use of "multicalibration" to yield interpretable and reliable confidence scores for outputs generated by large language models (LLMs). Multicalibration asks for calibration not just marginally, but simultaneously across various intersecting groupings of the data. We show how to form groupings for prompt/completion pairs that are correlated with the probability of correctnes… ▽ More This paper proposes the use of "multicalibration" to yield interpretable and reliable confidence scores for outputs generated by large language models (LLMs). Multicalibration asks for calibration not just marginally, but simultaneously across various intersecting groupings of the data. We show how to form groupings for prompt/completion pairs that are correlated with the probability of correctness via two techniques: clustering within an embedding space, and "self-annotation" - querying the LLM by asking it various yes-or-no questions about the prompt. We also develop novel variants of multicalibration algorithms that offer performance improvements by reducing their tendency to overfit. Through systematic benchmarking across various question answering datasets and LLMs, we show how our techniques can yield confidence scores that provide substantial improvements in fine-grained measures of both calibration and accuracy compared to existing methods. △ Less

Submitted 6 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Confidence Intervals for Error Rates in 1:1 Matching Tasks: Critical Statistical Analysis and Recommendations

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Pratik Patil, Pietro Perona

Abstract: Matching algorithms are commonly used to predict matches between items in a collection. For example, in 1:1 face verification, a matching algorithm predicts whether two face images depict the same person. Accurately assessing the uncertainty of the error rates of such algorithms can be challenging when data are dependent and error rates are low, two aspects that have been often overlooked in the l… ▽ More Matching algorithms are commonly used to predict matches between items in a collection. For example, in 1:1 face verification, a matching algorithm predicts whether two face images depict the same person. Accurately assessing the uncertainty of the error rates of such algorithms can be challenging when data are dependent and error rates are low, two aspects that have been often overlooked in the literature. In this work, we review methods for constructing confidence intervals for error rates in 1:1 matching tasks. We derive and examine the statistical properties of these methods, demonstrating how coverage and interval width vary with sample size, error rates, and degree of data dependence on both analysis and experiments with synthetic and real-world datasets. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations for best practices for constructing confidence intervals for error rates in 1:1 matching tasks. △ Less

Submitted 26 April, 2024; v1 submitted 1 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

The Progression of Disparities within the Criminal Justice System: Differential Enforcement and Risk Assessment Instruments

Authors: Miri Zilka, Riccardo Fogliato, Jiri Hron, Bradley Butcher, Carolyn Ashurst, Adrian Weller

Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) increasingly inform decision-making in criminal justice. RAIs largely rely on arrest records as a proxy for underlying crime. Problematically, the extent to which arrests reflect overall offending can vary with the person's characteristics. We examine how the disconnect between crime and arrest rates impacts RAIs and their evaluation. Our main contrib… ▽ More Algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) increasingly inform decision-making in criminal justice. RAIs largely rely on arrest records as a proxy for underlying crime. Problematically, the extent to which arrests reflect overall offending can vary with the person's characteristics. We examine how the disconnect between crime and arrest rates impacts RAIs and their evaluation. Our main contribution is a method for quantifying this bias via estimation of the amount of unobserved offenses associated with particular demographics. These unobserved offenses are then used to augment real-world arrest records to create part real, part synthetic crime records. Using this data, we estimate that four currently deployed RAIs assign 0.5--2.8 percentage points higher risk scores to Black individuals than to White individuals with a similar \emph{arrest} record, but the gap grows to 4.5--11.0 percentage points when we match on the semi-synthetic \emph{crime} record. We conclude by discussing the potential risks around the use of RAIs, highlighting how they may exacerbate existing inequalities if the underlying disparities of the criminal justice system are not taken into account. In light of our findings, we provide recommendations to improve the development and evaluation of such tools. △ Less

Submitted 12 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Comments: Accepted to FAccT '23

Homophily and Incentive Effects in Use of Algorithms

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Sina Fazelpour, Shantanu Gupta, Zachary Lipton, David Danks

Abstract: As algorithmic tools increasingly aid experts in making consequential decisions, the need to understand the precise factors that mediate their influence has grown commensurately. In this paper, we present a crowdsourcing vignette study designed to assess the impacts of two plausible factors on AI-informed decision-making. First, we examine homophily -- do people defer more to models that tend to a… ▽ More As algorithmic tools increasingly aid experts in making consequential decisions, the need to understand the precise factors that mediate their influence has grown commensurately. In this paper, we present a crowdsourcing vignette study designed to assess the impacts of two plausible factors on AI-informed decision-making. First, we examine homophily -- do people defer more to models that tend to agree with them? -- by manipulating the agreement during training between participants and the algorithmic tool. Second, we considered incentives -- how do people incorporate a (known) cost structure in the hybrid decision-making setting? -- by varying rewards associated with true positives vs. true negatives. Surprisingly, we found limited influence of either homophily and no evidence of incentive effects, despite participants performing similarly to previous studies. Higher levels of agreement between the participant and the AI tool yielded more confident predictions, but only when outcome feedback was absent. These results highlight the complexity of characterizing human-algorithm interactions, and suggest that findings from social psychology may require re-examination when humans interact with algorithms. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: Accepted at CogSci, 2022

Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Shreya Chappidi, Matthew Lungren, Michael Fitzke, Mark Parkinson, Diane Wilson, Paul Fisher, Eric Horvitz, Kori Inkpen, Besmira Nushi

Abstract: Details of the designs and mechanisms in support of human-AI collaboration must be considered in the real-world fielding of AI technologies. A critical aspect of interaction design for AI-assisted human decision making are policies about the display and sequencing of AI inferences within larger decision-making workflows. We have a poor understanding of the influences of making AI inferences availa… ▽ More Details of the designs and mechanisms in support of human-AI collaboration must be considered in the real-world fielding of AI technologies. A critical aspect of interaction design for AI-assisted human decision making are policies about the display and sequencing of AI inferences within larger decision-making workflows. We have a poor understanding of the influences of making AI inferences available before versus after human review of a diagnostic task at hand. We explore the effects of providing AI assistance at the start of a diagnostic session in radiology versus after the radiologist has made a provisional decision. We conducted a user study where 19 veterinary radiologists identified radiographic findings present in patients' X-ray images, with the aid of an AI tool. We employed two workflow configurations to analyze (i) anchoring effects, (ii) human-AI team diagnostic performance and agreement, (iii) time spent and confidence in decision making, and (iv) perceived usefulness of the AI. We found that participants who are asked to register provisional responses in advance of reviewing AI inferences are less likely to agree with the AI regardless of whether the advice is accurate and, in instances of disagreement with the AI, are less likely to seek the second opinion of a colleague. These participants also reported the AI advice to be less useful. Surprisingly, requiring provisional decisions on cases in advance of the display of AI inferences did not lengthen the time participants spent on the task. The study provides generalizable and actionable insights for the deployment of clinical AI tools in human-in-the-loop systems and introduces a methodology for studying alternative designs for human-AI collaboration. We make our experimental platform available as open source to facilitate future research on the influence of alternate designs on human-AI workflows. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: Accepted at ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 2022

The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Alexandra Chouldechova, Zachary Lipton

Abstract: As algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) are increasingly adopted to assist decision makers, their predictive performance and potential to promote inequity have come under scrutiny. However, while most studies examine these tools in isolation, researchers have come to recognize that assessing their impact requires understanding the behavior of their human interactants. In this paper, buil… ▽ More As algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) are increasingly adopted to assist decision makers, their predictive performance and potential to promote inequity have come under scrutiny. However, while most studies examine these tools in isolation, researchers have come to recognize that assessing their impact requires understanding the behavior of their human interactants. In this paper, building off of several recent crowdsourcing works focused on criminal justice, we conduct a vignette study in which laypersons are tasked with predicting future re-arrests. Our key findings are as follows: (1) Participants often predict that an offender will be rearrested even when they deem the likelihood of re-arrest to be well below 50%; (2) Participants do not anchor on the RAI's predictions; (3) The time spent on the survey varies widely across participants and most cases are assessed in less than 10 seconds; (4) Judicial decisions, unlike participants' predictions, depend in part on factors that are orthogonal to the likelihood of re-arrest. These results highlight the influence of several crucial but often overlooked design decisions and concerns around generalizability when constructing crowdsourcing studies to analyze the impacts of RAIs. △ Less

Submitted 3 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2, Article 428 (October 2021)

Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty

Authors: Umang Bhatt, Javier Antorán, Yunfeng Zhang, Q. Vera Liao, Prasanna Sattigeri, Riccardo Fogliato, Gabrielle Gauthier Melançon, Ranganath Krishnan, Jason Stanley, Omesh Tickoo, Lama Nachman, Rumi Chunara, Madhulika Srikumar, Adrian Weller, Alice Xiang

Abstract: Algorithmic transparency entails exposing system properties to various stakeholders for purposes that include understanding, improving, and contesting predictions. Until now, most research into algorithmic transparency has predominantly focused on explainability. Explainability attempts to provide reasons for a machine learning model's behavior to stakeholders. However, understanding a model's spe… ▽ More Algorithmic transparency entails exposing system properties to various stakeholders for purposes that include understanding, improving, and contesting predictions. Until now, most research into algorithmic transparency has predominantly focused on explainability. Explainability attempts to provide reasons for a machine learning model's behavior to stakeholders. However, understanding a model's specific behavior alone might not be enough for stakeholders to gauge whether the model is wrong or lacks sufficient knowledge to solve the task at hand. In this paper, we argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. First, we discuss methods for assessing uncertainty. Then, we characterize how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. Finally, we outline methods for displaying uncertainty to stakeholders and recommend how to collect information required for incorporating uncertainty into existing ML pipelines. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness. We aim to encourage researchers and practitioners to measure, communicate, and use uncertainty as a form of transparency. △ Less

Submitted 4 May, 2021; v1 submitted 15 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

Comments: AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (AIES) 2021

Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels

Authors: Riccardo Fogliato, Max G'Sell, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Risk assessment tools are widely used around the country to inform decision making within the criminal justice system. Recently, considerable attention has been devoted to the question of whether such tools may suffer from racial bias. In this type of assessment, a fundamental issue is that the training and evaluation of the model is based on a variable (arrest) that may represent a noisy version… ▽ More Risk assessment tools are widely used around the country to inform decision making within the criminal justice system. Recently, considerable attention has been devoted to the question of whether such tools may suffer from racial bias. In this type of assessment, a fundamental issue is that the training and evaluation of the model is based on a variable (arrest) that may represent a noisy version of an unobserved outcome of more central interest (offense). We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model as a predictor of reoffense. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome. △ Less

Submitted 30 March, 2020; originally announced March 2020.

Comments: Accepted at International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2020

A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores

Authors: Maria De-Arteaga, Riccardo Fogliato, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: The increased use of algorithmic predictions in sensitive domains has been accompanied by both enthusiasm and concern. To understand the opportunities and risks of these technologies, it is key to study how experts alter their decisions when using such tools. In this paper, we study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We focus on the q… ▽ More The increased use of algorithmic predictions in sensitive domains has been accompanied by both enthusiasm and concern. To understand the opportunities and risks of these technologies, it is key to study how experts alter their decisions when using such tools. In this paper, we study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We focus on the question: Are humans capable of identifying cases in which the machine is wrong, and of overriding those recommendations? We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. Then, we show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk, even when overriding the recommendation requires supervisory approval. These results highlight the risks of full automation and the importance of designing decision pipelines that provide humans with autonomy. △ Less

Submitted 20 February, 2020; v1 submitted 19 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: Accepted at ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM CHI), 2020