Showing 1–43 of 43 results for author: Ho, D E

The California Report on Frontier AI Policy

Authors: Rishi Bommasani, Scott R. Singer, Ruth E. Appel, Sarah Cen, A. Feder Cooper, Elena Cryst, Lindsey A. Gailmard, Ian Klaus, Meredith M. Lee, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Anka Reuel, Drew Spence, Alexander Wan, Angelina Wang, Daniel Zhang, Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang, Dawn Song, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Jonathan Zittrain, Jennifer Tour Chayes, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Li Fei-Fei

Abstract: The innovations emerging at the frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) are poised to create historic opportunities for humanity but also raise complex policy challenges. Continued progress in frontier AI carries the potential for profound advances in scientific discovery, economic productivity, and broader social well-being. As the epicenter of global AI innovation, California has a unique oppor… ▽ More The innovations emerging at the frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) are poised to create historic opportunities for humanity but also raise complex policy challenges. Continued progress in frontier AI carries the potential for profound advances in scientific discovery, economic productivity, and broader social well-being. As the epicenter of global AI innovation, California has a unique opportunity to continue supporting developments in frontier AI while addressing substantial risks that could have far reaching consequences for the state and beyond. This report leverages broad evidence, including empirical research, historical analysis, and modeling and simulations, to provide a framework for policymaking on the frontier of AI development. Building on this multidisciplinary approach, this report derives policy principles that can inform how California approaches the use, assessment, and governance of frontier AI: principles rooted in an ethos of trust but verify. This approach takes into account the importance of innovation while establishing appropriate strategies to reduce material risks. △ Less

Submitted 17 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

Comments: Authored by the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models

Bias Delayed is Bias Denied? Assessing the Effect of Reporting Delays on Disparity Assessments

Authors: Jennah Gosciak, Aparna Balagopalan, Derek Ouyang, Allison Koenecke, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Conducting disparity assessments at regular time intervals is critical for surfacing potential biases in decision-making and improving outcomes across demographic groups. Because disparity assessments fundamentally depend on the availability of demographic information, their efficacy is limited by the availability and consistency of available demographic identifiers. While prior work has considere… ▽ More Conducting disparity assessments at regular time intervals is critical for surfacing potential biases in decision-making and improving outcomes across demographic groups. Because disparity assessments fundamentally depend on the availability of demographic information, their efficacy is limited by the availability and consistency of available demographic identifiers. While prior work has considered the impact of missing data on fairness, little attention has been paid to the role of delayed demographic data. Delayed data, while eventually observed, might be missing at the critical point of monitoring and action -- and delays may be unequally distributed across groups in ways that distort disparity assessments. We characterize such impacts in healthcare, using electronic health records of over 5M patients across primary care practices in all 50 states. Our contributions are threefold. First, we document the high rate of race and ethnicity reporting delays in a healthcare setting and demonstrate widespread variation in rates at which demographics are reported across different groups. Second, through a set of retrospective analyses using real data, we find that such delays impact disparity assessments and hence conclusions made across a range of consequential healthcare outcomes, particularly at more granular levels of state-level and practice-level assessments. Third, we find limited ability of conventional methods that impute missing race in mitigating the effects of reporting delays on the accuracy of timely disparity assessments. Our insights and methods generalize to many domains of algorithmic fairness where delays in the availability of sensitive information may confound audits, thus deserving closer attention within a pipeline-aware machine learning framework. △ Less

Submitted 16 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems

Authors: Andy K. Zhang, Joey Ji, Celeste Menders, Riya Dulepet, Thomas Qin, Ron Y. Wang, Junrong Wu, Kyleen Liao, Jiliang Li, Jinghan Hu, Sara Hong, Nardos Demilew, Shivatmica Murgai, Jason Tran, Nishka Kacheria, Ethan Ho, Denis Liu, Lauren McLane, Olivia Bruvik, Dai-Rong Han, Seungwoo Kim, Akhil Vyas, Cuiyuanxiu Chen, Ryan Li, Weiran Xu , et al. (9 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: AI agents have the potential to significantly alter the cybersecurity landscape. To help us understand this change, we introduce the first framework to capture offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities in evolving real-world systems. Instantiating this framework with BountyBench, we set up 25 systems with complex, real-world codebases. To capture the vulnerability lifecycle, we define three task… ▽ More AI agents have the potential to significantly alter the cybersecurity landscape. To help us understand this change, we introduce the first framework to capture offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities in evolving real-world systems. Instantiating this framework with BountyBench, we set up 25 systems with complex, real-world codebases. To capture the vulnerability lifecycle, we define three task types: Detect (detecting a new vulnerability), Exploit (exploiting a specific vulnerability), and Patch (patching a specific vulnerability). For Detect, we construct a new success indicator, which is general across vulnerability types and provides localized evaluation. We manually set up the environment for each system, including installing packages, setting up server(s), and hydrating database(s). We add 40 bug bounties, which are vulnerabilities with monetary awards from \$10 to \$30,485, and cover 9 of the OWASP Top 10 Risks. To modulate task difficulty, we devise a new strategy based on information to guide detection, interpolating from identifying a zero day to exploiting a specific vulnerability. We evaluate 5 agents: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI, and custom agents with GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking. Given up to three attempts, the top-performing agents are Claude Code (5% on Detect, mapping to \$1,350), Custom Agent with Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking (5% on Detect, mapping to \$1,025; 67.5% on Exploit), and OpenAI Codex CLI (5% on Detect, mapping to \$2,400; 90% on Patch, mapping to \$14,422). OpenAI Codex CLI and Claude Code are more capable at defense, achieving higher Patch scores of 90% and 87.5%, compared to Exploit scores of 32.5% and 57.5% respectively; in contrast, the custom agents are relatively balanced between offense and defense, achieving Exploit scores of 40-67.5% and Patch scores of 45-60%. △ Less

Submitted 21 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Comments: 78 pages

Extracting memorized pieces of (copyrighted) books from open-weight language models

Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Aaron Gokaslan, Amy B. Cyphert, Christopher De Sa, Mark A. Lemley, Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang

Abstract: Plaintiffs and defendants in copyright lawsuits over generative AI often make sweeping, opposing claims about the extent to which large language models (LLMs) have memorized plaintiffs' protected expression. Drawing on adversarial ML and copyright law, we show that these polarized positions dramatically oversimplify the relationship between memorization and copyright. To do so, we leverage a recen… ▽ More Plaintiffs and defendants in copyright lawsuits over generative AI often make sweeping, opposing claims about the extent to which large language models (LLMs) have memorized plaintiffs' protected expression. Drawing on adversarial ML and copyright law, we show that these polarized positions dramatically oversimplify the relationship between memorization and copyright. To do so, we leverage a recent probabilistic extraction technique to extract pieces of the Books3 dataset from 13 open-weight LLMs. Through numerous experiments, we show that it's possible to extract substantial parts of at least some books from different LLMs. This is evidence that the LLMs have memorized the extracted text; this memorized content is copied inside the model parameters. But the results are complicated: the extent of memorization varies both by model and by book. With our specific experiments, we find that the largest LLMs don't memorize most books -- either in whole or in part. However, we also find that Llama 3.1 70B memorizes some books, like Harry Potter and 1984, almost entirely. We discuss why our results have significant implications for copyright cases, though not ones that unambiguously favor either side. △ Less

Submitted 18 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

A Reasoning-Focused Legal Retrieval Benchmark

Authors: Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Javokhir Arifov, Sarah Zhang, Michal Skreta, Christopher D. Manning, Peter Henderson, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: As the legal community increasingly examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for various legal applications, legal AI developers have turned to retrieval-augmented LLMs ("RAG" systems) to improve system performance and robustness. An obstacle to the development of specialized RAG systems is the lack of realistic legal RAG benchmarks which capture the complexity of both legal retrieval and… ▽ More As the legal community increasingly examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for various legal applications, legal AI developers have turned to retrieval-augmented LLMs ("RAG" systems) to improve system performance and robustness. An obstacle to the development of specialized RAG systems is the lack of realistic legal RAG benchmarks which capture the complexity of both legal retrieval and downstream legal question-answering. To address this, we introduce two novel legal RAG benchmarks: Bar Exam QA and Housing Statute QA. Our tasks correspond to real-world legal research tasks, and were produced through annotation processes which resemble legal research. We describe the construction of these benchmarks and the performance of existing retriever pipelines. Our results suggest that legal RAG remains a challenging application, thus motivating future research. △ Less

Submitted 6 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Comments: CS&Law 2025. For data, see https://reglab.github.io/legal-rag-benchmarks/

AI for Scaling Legal Reform: Mapping and Redacting Racial Covenants in Santa Clara County

Authors: Faiz Surani, Mirac Suzgun, Vyoma Raman, Christopher D. Manning, Peter Henderson, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Legal reform can be challenging in light of the volume, complexity, and interdependence of laws, codes, and records. One salient example of this challenge is the effort to restrict and remove racially restrictive covenants, clauses in property deeds that historically barred individuals of specific races from purchasing homes. Despite the Supreme Court holding such racial covenants unenforceable in… ▽ More Legal reform can be challenging in light of the volume, complexity, and interdependence of laws, codes, and records. One salient example of this challenge is the effort to restrict and remove racially restrictive covenants, clauses in property deeds that historically barred individuals of specific races from purchasing homes. Despite the Supreme Court holding such racial covenants unenforceable in 1948, they persist in property records across the United States. Many jurisdictions have moved to identify and strike these provisions, including California, which mandated in 2021 that all counties implement such a process. Yet the scale can be overwhelming, with Santa Clara County (SCC) alone having over 24 million property deed documents, making purely manual review infeasible. We present a novel approach to addressing this pressing issue, developed through a partnership with the SCC Clerk-Recorder's Office. First, we leverage an open large language model, finetuned to detect racial covenants with high precision and recall. We estimate that this system reduces manual efforts by 86,500 person hours and costs less than 2% of the cost for a comparable off-the-shelf closed model. Second, we illustrate the County's integration of this model into responsible operational practice, including legal review and the creation of a historical registry, and release our model to assist the hundreds of jurisdictions engaged in similar efforts. Finally, our results reveal distinct periods of utilization of racial covenants, sharp geographic clustering, and the disproportionate role of a small number of developers in maintaining housing discrimination. We estimate that by 1950, one in four properties across the County were subject to racial covenants. △ Less

Submitted 6 March, 2025; v1 submitted 12 February, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Comments: https://reglab.github.io/racialcovenants/

Fairness through Difference Awareness: Measuring Desired Group Discrimination in LLMs

Authors: Angelina Wang, Michelle Phan, Daniel E. Ho, Sanmi Koyejo

Abstract: Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm… ▽ More Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., referring to girls as ``terrorists'' may be less harmful than referring to Muslim people as such). Thus, in contrast to most fairness work, we study fairness through the perspective of treating people differently -- when it is contextually appropriate to. We first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires separate interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension to fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire. △ Less

Submitted 22 May, 2025; v1 submitted 3 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Comments: Accepted to ACL 2025 Main Conference

Artificial Intelligence in Environmental Protection: The Importance of Organizational Context from a Field Study in Wisconsin

Authors: Nicolas Rothbacher, Kit T. Rodolfa, Mihir Bhaskar, Erin Maneri, Christine Tsang, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have generated widespread enthusiasm for the potential of AI to support our understanding and protection of the environment. As such tools move from basic research to more consequential settings, such as regulatory enforcement, the human context of how AI is utilized, interpreted, and deployed becomes increasingly critical. Yet little work has systematicall… ▽ More Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have generated widespread enthusiasm for the potential of AI to support our understanding and protection of the environment. As such tools move from basic research to more consequential settings, such as regulatory enforcement, the human context of how AI is utilized, interpreted, and deployed becomes increasingly critical. Yet little work has systematically examined the role of such organizational goals and incentives in deploying AI systems. We report results from a unique case study of a satellite imagery-based AI tool to detect dumping of agricultural waste, with concurrent field trials with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and a non-governmental environmental interest group in which the tool was utilized for field investigations when dumping was presumptively illegal in February-March 2023. Our results are threefold: First, both organizations confirmed a similar level of ground-truth accuracy for the model's detections. Second, they differed, however, in their overall assessment of its usefulness, as WDNR was interested in clear violations of existing law, while the interest group sought to document environmental risk beyond the scope of existing regulation. Dumping by an unpermitted entity or just before February 1, for instance, were deemed irrelevant by WDNR. Third, while AI tools promise to prioritize allocation of environmental protection resources, they may expose important gaps of existing law. △ Less

Submitted 8 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy, Research, and Practice

Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Miranda Bogen, Matthew Jagielski, Katja Filippova, Ken Ziyu Liu, Alexandra Chouldechova, Jamie Hayes, Yangsibo Huang, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Ilia Shumailov, Eleni Triantafillou, Peter Kairouz, Nicole Mitchell, Percy Liang, Daniel E. Ho, Yejin Choi, Sanmi Koyejo, Fernando Delgado, James Grimmelmann, Vitaly Shmatikov, Christopher De Sa, Solon Barocas, Amy Cyphert, Mark Lemley , et al. (10 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: We articulate fundamental mismatches between technical methods for machine unlearning in Generative AI, and documented aspirations for broader impact that these methods could have for law and policy. These aspirations are both numerous and varied, motivated by issues that pertain to privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effect… ▽ More We articulate fundamental mismatches between technical methods for machine unlearning in Generative AI, and documented aspirations for broader impact that these methods could have for law and policy. These aspirations are both numerous and varied, motivated by issues that pertain to privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effects of targeted information from a generative-AI model's parameters, e.g., a particular individual's personal data or in-copyright expression of Spiderman that was included in the model's training data. Unlearning is also proposed as a way to prevent a model from generating targeted types of information in its outputs, e.g., generations that closely resemble a particular individual's data or reflect the concept of "Spiderman." Both of these goals--the targeted removal of information from a model and the targeted suppression of information from a model's outputs--present various technical and substantive challenges. We provide a framework for thinking rigorously about these challenges, which enables us to be clear about why unlearning is not a general-purpose solution for circumscribing generative-AI model behavior in service of broader positive impact. We aim for conceptual clarity and to encourage more thoughtful communication among machine learning (ML), law, and policy experts who seek to develop and apply technical methods for compliance with policy objectives. △ Less

Submitted 9 December, 2024; originally announced December 2024.

Comments: Presented at the 2nd Workshop on Generative AI and Law at ICML (July 2024)

Belief in the Machine: Investigating Epistemological Blind Spots of Language Models

Authors: Mirac Suzgun, Tayfun Gur, Federico Bianchi, Daniel E. Ho, Thomas Icard, Dan Jurafsky, James Zou

Abstract: As language models (LMs) become integral to fields like healthcare, law, and journalism, their ability to differentiate between fact, belief, and knowledge is essential for reliable decision-making. Failure to grasp these distinctions can lead to significant consequences in areas such as medical diagnosis, legal judgments, and dissemination of fake news. Despite this, current literature has largel… ▽ More As language models (LMs) become integral to fields like healthcare, law, and journalism, their ability to differentiate between fact, belief, and knowledge is essential for reliable decision-making. Failure to grasp these distinctions can lead to significant consequences in areas such as medical diagnosis, legal judgments, and dissemination of fake news. Despite this, current literature has largely focused on more complex issues such as theory of mind, overlooking more fundamental epistemic challenges. This study systematically evaluates the epistemic reasoning capabilities of modern LMs, including GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3, using a new dataset, KaBLE, consisting of 13,000 questions across 13 tasks. Our results reveal key limitations. First, while LMs achieve 86% accuracy on factual scenarios, their performance drops significantly with false scenarios, particularly in belief-related tasks. Second, LMs struggle with recognizing and affirming personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs contradict factual data, which raises concerns for applications in healthcare and counseling, where engaging with a person's beliefs is critical. Third, we identify a salient bias in how LMs process first-person versus third-person beliefs, performing better on third-person tasks (80.7%) compared to first-person tasks (54.4%). Fourth, LMs lack a robust understanding of the factive nature of knowledge, namely, that knowledge inherently requires truth. Fifth, LMs rely on linguistic cues for fact-checking and sometimes bypass the deeper reasoning. These findings highlight significant concerns about current LMs' ability to reason about truth, belief, and knowledge while emphasizing the need for advancements in these areas before broad deployment in critical sectors. △ Less

Submitted 28 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Comments: https://github.com/suzgunmirac/belief-in-the-machine

Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Models

Authors: Andy K. Zhang, Neil Perry, Riya Dulepet, Joey Ji, Celeste Menders, Justin W. Lin, Eliot Jones, Gashon Hussein, Samantha Liu, Donovan Jasper, Pura Peetathawatchai, Ari Glenn, Vikram Sivashankar, Daniel Zamoshchin, Leo Glikbarg, Derek Askaryar, Mike Yang, Teddy Zhang, Rishi Alluri, Nathan Tran, Rinnara Sangpisit, Polycarpos Yiorkadjis, Kenny Osele, Gautham Raghupathi, Dan Boneh , et al. (2 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Language Model (LM) agents for cybersecurity that are capable of autonomously identifying vulnerabilities and executing exploits have potential to cause real-world impact. Policymakers, model providers, and researchers in the AI and cybersecurity communities are interested in quantifying the capabilities of such agents to help mitigate cyberrisk and investigate opportunities for penetration testin… ▽ More Language Model (LM) agents for cybersecurity that are capable of autonomously identifying vulnerabilities and executing exploits have potential to cause real-world impact. Policymakers, model providers, and researchers in the AI and cybersecurity communities are interested in quantifying the capabilities of such agents to help mitigate cyberrisk and investigate opportunities for penetration testing. Toward that end, we introduce Cybench, a framework for specifying cybersecurity tasks and evaluating agents on those tasks. We include 40 professional-level Capture the Flag (CTF) tasks from 4 distinct CTF competitions, chosen to be recent, meaningful, and spanning a wide range of difficulties. Each task includes its own description, starter files, and is initialized in an environment where an agent can execute commands and observe outputs. Since many tasks are beyond the capabilities of existing LM agents, we introduce subtasks for each task, which break down a task into intermediary steps for a more detailed evaluation. To evaluate agent capabilities, we construct a cybersecurity agent and evaluate 8 models: GPT-4o, OpenAI o1-preview, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Mixtral 8x22b Instruct, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B Chat, and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct. For the top performing models (GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet), we further investigate performance across 4 agent scaffolds (structed bash, action-only, pseudoterminal, and web search). Without subtask guidance, agents leveraging Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, OpenAI o1-preview, and Claude 3 Opus successfully solved complete tasks that took human teams up to 11 minutes to solve. In comparison, the most difficult task took human teams 24 hours and 54 minutes to solve. All code and data are publicly available at https://cybench.github.io. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2025; v1 submitted 15 August, 2024; originally announced August 2024.

Comments: ICLR 2025 Oral

Regulating AI Adaptation: An Analysis of AI Medical Device Updates

Authors: Kevin Wu, Eric Wu, Kit Rodolfa, Daniel E. Ho, James Zou

Abstract: While the pace of development of AI has rapidly progressed in recent years, the implementation of safe and effective regulatory frameworks has lagged behind. In particular, the adaptive nature of AI models presents unique challenges to regulators as updating a model can improve its performance but also introduce safety risks. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been a forerunner… ▽ More While the pace of development of AI has rapidly progressed in recent years, the implementation of safe and effective regulatory frameworks has lagged behind. In particular, the adaptive nature of AI models presents unique challenges to regulators as updating a model can improve its performance but also introduce safety risks. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been a forerunner in regulating and approving hundreds of AI medical devices. To better understand how AI is updated and its regulatory considerations, we systematically analyze the frequency and nature of updates in FDA-approved AI medical devices. We find that less than 2% of all devices report having been updated by being re-trained on new data. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of devices report updates in the form of new functionality and marketing claims. As an illustrative case study, we analyze pneumothorax detection models and find that while model performance can degrade by as much as 0.18 AUC when evaluated on new sites, re-training on site-specific data can mitigate this performance drop, recovering up to 0.23 AUC. However, we also observed significant degradation on the original site after re-training using data from new sites, providing insight from one example that challenges the current one-model-fits-all approach to regulatory approvals. Our analysis provides an in-depth look at the current state of FDA-approved AI device updates and insights for future regulatory policies toward model updating and adaptive AI. △ Less

Submitted 22 June, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Journal ref: CHIL 2024

Locating and measuring marine aquaculture production from space: a computer vision approach in the French Mediterranean

Authors: Sebastian Quaade, Andrea Vallebueno, Olivia D. N. Alcabes, Kit T. Rodolfa, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Aquaculture production -- the cultivation of aquatic plants and animals -- has grown rapidly since the 1990s, but sparse, self-reported and aggregate production data limits the effective understanding and monitoring of the industry's trends and potential risks. Building on a manual survey of aquaculture production from remote sensing imagery, we train a computer vision model to identify marine aqu… ▽ More Aquaculture production -- the cultivation of aquatic plants and animals -- has grown rapidly since the 1990s, but sparse, self-reported and aggregate production data limits the effective understanding and monitoring of the industry's trends and potential risks. Building on a manual survey of aquaculture production from remote sensing imagery, we train a computer vision model to identify marine aquaculture cages from aerial and satellite imagery, and generate a spatially explicit dataset of finfish production locations in the French Mediterranean from 2000-2021 that includes 4,010 cages (69m2 average cage area). We demonstrate the value of our method as an easily adaptable, cost-effective approach that can improve the speed and reliability of aquaculture surveys, and enables downstream analyses relevant to researchers and regulators. We illustrate its use to compute independent estimates of production, and develop a flexible framework to quantify uncertainty in these estimates. Overall, our study presents an efficient, scalable and highly adaptable method for monitoring aquaculture production from remote sensing imagery. △ Less

Submitted 19 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Statistical Uncertainty in Word Embeddings: GloVe-V

Authors: Andrea Vallebueno, Cassandra Handan-Nader, Christopher D. Manning, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Static word embeddings are ubiquitous in computational social science applications and contribute to practical decision-making in a variety of fields including law and healthcare. However, assessing the statistical uncertainty in downstream conclusions drawn from word embedding statistics has remained challenging. When using only point estimates for embeddings, researchers have no streamlined way… ▽ More Static word embeddings are ubiquitous in computational social science applications and contribute to practical decision-making in a variety of fields including law and healthcare. However, assessing the statistical uncertainty in downstream conclusions drawn from word embedding statistics has remained challenging. When using only point estimates for embeddings, researchers have no streamlined way of assessing the degree to which their model selection criteria or scientific conclusions are subject to noise due to sparsity in the underlying data used to generate the embeddings. We introduce a method to obtain approximate, easy-to-use, and scalable reconstruction error variance estimates for GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014), one of the most widely used word embedding models, using an analytical approximation to a multivariate normal model. To demonstrate the value of embeddings with variance (GloVe-V), we illustrate how our approach enables principled hypothesis testing in core word embedding tasks, such as comparing the similarity between different word pairs in vector space, assessing the performance of different models, and analyzing the relative degree of ethnic or gender bias in a corpus using different word lists. △ Less

Submitted 17 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

Authors: Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, c… ▽ More Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Comments: Our dataset, tool outputs, and labels will be made available upon publication. This version of the manuscript (May 30, 2024) is updated to reflect an evaluation of Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research

LawInstruct: A Resource for Studying Language Model Adaptation to the Legal Domain

Authors: Joel Niklaus, Lucia Zheng, Arya D. McCarthy, Christopher Hahn, Brian M. Rosen, Peter Henderson, Daniel E. Ho, Garrett Honke, Percy Liang, Christopher Manning

Abstract: Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, the legal domain is underrepresented in typical instruction datasets (e.g., only 10 out of 1600+ tasks in Super-NaturalInstructions). To study whether instruction tuning on legal datasets is necessary for strong legal reasoning, we aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructi… ▽ More Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, the legal domain is underrepresented in typical instruction datasets (e.g., only 10 out of 1600+ tasks in Super-NaturalInstructions). To study whether instruction tuning on legal datasets is necessary for strong legal reasoning, we aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructions for each, creating LawInstruct. LawInstruct covers 17 global jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples across diverse tasks such as legal QA, summarization of court cases, and legal argument mining. We evaluate our models on LegalBench, measuring legal reasoning across five categories in 162 challenging and realistic legal tasks, and MMLU, to measure potential drops in general reasoning capabilities. We find that legal-specific instruction tuning on Flan-T5 - yielding FLawN-T5 - improves performance on LegalBench across all model sizes, with an aggregate increase of 15 points or 50% over Flan-T5 for the base size. No model size shows performance drops in MMLU. We publish LawInstruct as a resource for further study of instruction tuning in the legal domain. △ Less

Submitted 23 January, 2025; v1 submitted 2 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: Accepted at Findings of NAACL 2025

MSC Class: 68T50 ACM Class: I.2

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

Authors: Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Shayne Longpre, Ashwin Ramaswami, Peter Cihon, Aspen Hopkins, Kevin Bankston, Stella Biderman, Miranda Bogen, Rumman Chowdhury, Alex Engler, Peter Henderson, Yacine Jernite, Seth Lazar, Stefano Maffulli, Alondra Nelson, Joelle Pineau, Aviya Skowron, Dawn Song, Victor Storchan, Daniel Zhang, Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang, Arvind Narayanan

Abstract: Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to bo… ▽ More Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

How well do LLMs cite relevant medical references? An evaluation framework and analyses

Authors: Kevin Wu, Eric Wu, Ally Cassasola, Angela Zhang, Kevin Wei, Teresa Nguyen, Sith Riantawan, Patricia Shi Riantawan, Daniel E. Ho, James Zou

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. Recent top-performing commercial LLMs, in particular, are also capable of citing sources to support their responses. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? To answer this, we propose three contributions. First, as expe… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. Recent top-performing commercial LLMs, in particular, are also capable of citing sources to support their responses. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? To answer this, we propose three contributions. First, as expert medical annotations are an expensive and time-consuming bottleneck for scalable evaluation, we demonstrate that GPT-4 is highly accurate in validating source relevance, agreeing 88% of the time with a panel of medical doctors. Second, we develop an end-to-end, automated pipeline called \textit{SourceCheckup} and use it to evaluate five top-performing LLMs on a dataset of 1200 generated questions, totaling over 40K pairs of statements and sources. Interestingly, we find that between ~50% to 90% of LLM responses are not fully supported by the sources they provide. We also evaluate GPT-4 with retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and find that, even still, around 30\% of individual statements are unsupported, while nearly half of its responses are not fully supported. Third, we open-source our curated dataset of medical questions and expert annotations for future evaluations. Given the rapid pace of LLM development and the potential harms of incorrect or outdated medical information, it is crucial to also understand and quantify their capability to produce relevant, trustworthy medical references. △ Less

Submitted 2 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models

Authors: Matthew Dahl, Varun Magesh, Mirac Suzgun, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Do large language models (LLMs) know the law? These models are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research, yet their revolutionary potential is threatened by the presence of hallucinations -- textual output that is not consistent with legal facts. We present the first systematic evidence of these hallucinations, documenting LLMs' varying performance across jurisdict… ▽ More Do large language models (LLMs) know the law? These models are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research, yet their revolutionary potential is threatened by the presence of hallucinations -- textual output that is not consistent with legal facts. We present the first systematic evidence of these hallucinations, documenting LLMs' varying performance across jurisdictions, courts, time periods, and cases. Our work makes four key contributions. First, we develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. Second, we find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 58% of the time with ChatGPT 4 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. Third, we illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. Fourth, we provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, our findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers must remain wary of legal hallucinations, and the risks are highest for those who stand to benefit from LLMs the most -- pro se litigants or those without access to traditional legal resources. △ Less

Submitted 21 June, 2024; v1 submitted 2 January, 2024; originally announced January 2024.

Journal ref: Journal of Legal Analysis 16, no. 1 (2024): 64-93

Estimating and Implementing Conventional Fairness Metrics With Probabilistic Protected Features

Authors: Hadi Elzayn, Emily Black, Patrick Vossler, Nathanael Jo, Jacob Goldin, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: The vast majority of techniques to train fair models require access to the protected attribute (e.g., race, gender), either at train time or in production. However, in many important applications this protected attribute is largely unavailable. In this paper, we develop methods for measuring and reducing fairness violations in a setting with limited access to protected attribute labels. Specifical… ▽ More The vast majority of techniques to train fair models require access to the protected attribute (e.g., race, gender), either at train time or in production. However, in many important applications this protected attribute is largely unavailable. In this paper, we develop methods for measuring and reducing fairness violations in a setting with limited access to protected attribute labels. Specifically, we assume access to protected attribute labels on a small subset of the dataset of interest, but only probabilistic estimates of protected attribute labels (e.g., via Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding) for the rest of the dataset. With this setting in mind, we propose a method to estimate bounds on common fairness metrics for an existing model, as well as a method for training a model to limit fairness violations by solving a constrained non-convex optimization problem. Unlike similar existing approaches, our methods take advantage of contextual information -- specifically, the relationships between a model's predictions and the probabilistic prediction of protected attributes, given the true protected attribute, and vice versa -- to provide tighter bounds on the true disparity. We provide an empirical illustration of our methods using voting data. First, we show our measurement method can bound the true disparity up to 5.5x tighter than previous methods in these applications. Then, we demonstrate that our training technique effectively reduces disparity while incurring lesser fairness-accuracy trade-offs than other fair optimization methods with limited access to protected attributes. △ Less

Submitted 2 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Toward Operationalizing Pipeline-aware ML Fairness: A Research Agenda for Developing Practical Guidelines and Tools

Authors: Emily Black, Rakshit Naidu, Rayid Ghani, Kit T. Rodolfa, Daniel E. Ho, Hoda Heidari

Abstract: While algorithmic fairness is a thriving area of research, in practice, mitigating issues of bias often gets reduced to enforcing an arbitrarily chosen fairness metric, either by enforcing fairness constraints during the optimization step, post-processing model outputs, or by manipulating the training data. Recent work has called on the ML community to take a more holistic approach to tackle fairn… ▽ More While algorithmic fairness is a thriving area of research, in practice, mitigating issues of bias often gets reduced to enforcing an arbitrarily chosen fairness metric, either by enforcing fairness constraints during the optimization step, post-processing model outputs, or by manipulating the training data. Recent work has called on the ML community to take a more holistic approach to tackle fairness issues by systematically investigating the many design choices made through the ML pipeline, and identifying interventions that target the issue's root cause, as opposed to its symptoms. While we share the conviction that this pipeline-based approach is the most appropriate for combating algorithmic unfairness on the ground, we believe there are currently very few methods of \emph{operationalizing} this approach in practice. Drawing on our experience as educators and practitioners, we first demonstrate that without clear guidelines and toolkits, even individuals with specialized ML knowledge find it challenging to hypothesize how various design choices influence model behavior. We then consult the fair-ML literature to understand the progress to date toward operationalizing the pipeline-aware approach: we systematically collect and organize the prior work that attempts to detect, measure, and mitigate various sources of unfairness through the ML pipeline. We utilize this extensive categorization of previous contributions to sketch a research agenda for the community. We hope this work serves as the stepping stone toward a more comprehensive set of resources for ML researchers, practitioners, and students interested in exploring, designing, and testing pipeline-oriented approaches to algorithmic fairness. △ Less

Submitted 29 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

Comments: EAAMO'23 (Archival)

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Authors: Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel E. Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Aditya Narayana, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel N. Rockmore, Diego Zambrano, Dmitry Talisman, Enam Hoque, Faiz Surani, Frank Fagan, Galit Sarfaty, Gregory M. Dickinson, Haggai Porat, Jason Hegland, Jessica Wu, Joe Nudell, Joel Niklaus, John Nay, Jonathan H. Choi, Kevin Tobia , et al. (15 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisc… ▽ More The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables. △ Less

Submitted 20 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Comments: 143 pages, 79 tables, 4 figures

One Law, Many Languages: Benchmarking Multilingual Legal Reasoning for Judicial Support

Authors: Ronja Stern, Vishvaksenan Rasiah, Veton Matoshi, Srinanda Brügger Bose, Matthias Stürmer, Ilias Chalkidis, Daniel E. Ho, Joel Niklaus

Abstract: Recent strides in Large Language Models (LLMs) have saturated many Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks, emphasizing the need for more challenging ones to properly assess LLM capabilities. However, domain-specific and multilingual benchmarks are rare because they require in-depth expertise to develop. Still, most public models are trained predominantly on English corpora, while other langu… ▽ More Recent strides in Large Language Models (LLMs) have saturated many Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks, emphasizing the need for more challenging ones to properly assess LLM capabilities. However, domain-specific and multilingual benchmarks are rare because they require in-depth expertise to develop. Still, most public models are trained predominantly on English corpora, while other languages remain understudied, particularly for practical domain-specific NLP tasks. In this work, we introduce a novel NLP benchmark for the legal domain that challenges LLMs in five key dimensions: processing \emph{long documents} (up to 50K tokens), using \emph{domain-specific knowledge} (embodied in legal texts), \emph{multilingual} understanding (covering five languages), \emph{multitasking} (comprising legal document-to-document Information Retrieval, Court View Generation, Leading Decision Summarization, Citation Extraction, and eight challenging Text Classification tasks) and \emph{reasoning} (comprising especially Court View Generation, but also the Text Classification tasks). Our benchmark contains diverse datasets from the Swiss legal system, allowing for a comprehensive study of the underlying non-English, inherently multilingual legal system. Despite the large size of our datasets (some with hundreds of thousands of examples), existing publicly available multilingual models struggle with most tasks, even after extensive in-domain pre-training and fine-tuning. We publish all resources (benchmark suite, pre-trained models, code) under permissive open CC BY-SA licenses. △ Less

Submitted 21 August, 2024; v1 submitted 15 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

MSC Class: 68T50 ACM Class: I.2

MultiLegalPile: A 689GB Multilingual Legal Corpus

Authors: Joel Niklaus, Veton Matoshi, Matthias Stürmer, Ilias Chalkidis, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Large, high-quality datasets are crucial for training Large Language Models (LLMs). However, so far, there are few datasets available for specialized critical domains such as law and the available ones are often only for the English language. We curate and release MultiLegalPile, a 689GB corpus in 24 languages from 17 jurisdictions. The MultiLegalPile corpus, which includes diverse legal data sour… ▽ More Large, high-quality datasets are crucial for training Large Language Models (LLMs). However, so far, there are few datasets available for specialized critical domains such as law and the available ones are often only for the English language. We curate and release MultiLegalPile, a 689GB corpus in 24 languages from 17 jurisdictions. The MultiLegalPile corpus, which includes diverse legal data sources with varying licenses, allows for pretraining NLP models under fair use, with more permissive licenses for the Eurlex Resources and Legal mC4 subsets. We pretrain two RoBERTa models and one Longformer multilingually, and 24 monolingual models on each of the language-specific subsets and evaluate them on LEXTREME. Additionally, we evaluate the English and multilingual models on LexGLUE. Our multilingual models set a new SotA on LEXTREME and our English models on LexGLUE. We release the dataset, the trained models, and all of the code under the most open possible licenses. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: Accepted to ACL 2024

MSC Class: 68T50 ACM Class: I.2

Potential for allocative harm in an environmental justice data tool

Authors: Benjamin Q. Huynh, Elizabeth T. Chin, Allison Koenecke, Derek Ouyang, Daniel E. Ho, Mathew V. Kiang, David H. Rehkopf

Abstract: Neighborhood-level screening algorithms are increasingly being deployed to inform policy decisions. We evaluate one such algorithm, CalEnviroScreen - designed to promote environmental justice and used to guide hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding annually - assessing its potential for allocative harm. We observe the model to be sensitive to subjective model decisions, with 16% of trac… ▽ More Neighborhood-level screening algorithms are increasingly being deployed to inform policy decisions. We evaluate one such algorithm, CalEnviroScreen - designed to promote environmental justice and used to guide hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding annually - assessing its potential for allocative harm. We observe the model to be sensitive to subjective model decisions, with 16% of tracts potentially changing designation, as well as financially consequential, estimating the effect of its positive designations as a 104% (62-145%) increase in funding, equivalent to \$2.08 billion (\$1.56-2.41 billion) over four years. We also observe allocative tradeoffs and susceptibility to manipulation, raising ethical concerns. We recommend incorporating sensitivity analyses to mitigate allocative harm and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2023; v1 submitted 12 April, 2023; originally announced April 2023.

Journal ref: Nat Mach Intell 6, 187-194 (2024)

Estimating Racial Disparities When Race is Not Observed

Authors: Cory McCartan, Robin Fisher, Jacob Goldin, Daniel E. Ho, Kosuke Imai

Abstract: The estimation of racial disparities in various fields is often hampered by the lack of individual-level racial information. In many cases, the law prohibits the collection of such information to prevent direct racial discrimination. As a result, analysts have frequently adopted Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) and its variants, which combine individual names and addresses with Census da… ▽ More The estimation of racial disparities in various fields is often hampered by the lack of individual-level racial information. In many cases, the law prohibits the collection of such information to prevent direct racial discrimination. As a result, analysts have frequently adopted Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) and its variants, which combine individual names and addresses with Census data to predict race. Unfortunately, the residuals of BISG are often correlated with the outcomes of interest, generally attenuating estimates of racial disparities. To correct this bias, we propose an alternative identification strategy under the assumption that surname is conditionally independent of the outcome given (unobserved) race, residence location, and other observed characteristics. We introduce a new class of models, Bayesian Instrumental Regression for Disparity Estimation (BIRDiE), that take BISG probabilities as inputs and produce racial disparity estimates by using surnames as an instrumental variable for race. Our estimation method is scalable, making it possible to analyze large-scale administrative data. We also show how to address potential violations of the key identification assumptions. A validation study based on the North Carolina voter file shows that BISG+BIRDiE reduces error by up to 84% when estimating racial differences in party registration. Finally, we apply the proposed methodology to estimate racial differences in who benefits from the home mortgage interest deduction using individual-level tax data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Open-source software is available which implements the proposed methodology. △ Less

Submitted 16 April, 2024; v1 submitted 4 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: 28 pages, 9 figures, plus references and appendices

LegalBench: Prototyping a Collaborative Benchmark for Legal Reasoning

Authors: Neel Guha, Daniel E. Ho, Julian Nyarko, Christopher Ré

Abstract: Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can… ▽ More Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can guide the construction of a Foundation Model oriented benchmark. Second, we present a seed set of 44 tasks built according to this framework. We discuss initial findings, and highlight directions for new tasks. Finally-inspired by the Open Science movement-we make a call for the legal and computer science communities to join our efforts by contributing new tasks. This work is ongoing, and our progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/HazyResearch/legalbench. △ Less

Submitted 13 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: 13 pages, 7 tables

Entropy Regularization for Population Estimation

Authors: Ben Chugg, Peter Henderson, Jacob Goldin, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Entropy regularization is known to improve exploration in sequential decision-making problems. We show that this same mechanism can also lead to nearly unbiased and lower-variance estimates of the mean reward in the optimize-and-estimate structured bandit setting. Mean reward estimation (i.e., population estimation) tasks have recently been shown to be essential for public policy settings where le… ▽ More Entropy regularization is known to improve exploration in sequential decision-making problems. We show that this same mechanism can also lead to nearly unbiased and lower-variance estimates of the mean reward in the optimize-and-estimate structured bandit setting. Mean reward estimation (i.e., population estimation) tasks have recently been shown to be essential for public policy settings where legal constraints often require precise estimates of population metrics. We show that leveraging entropy and KL divergence can yield a better trade-off between reward and estimator variance than existing baselines, all while remaining nearly unbiased. These properties of entropy regularization illustrate an exciting potential for bridging the optimal exploration and estimation literatures. △ Less

Submitted 24 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Detecting Environmental Violations with Satellite Imagery in Near Real Time: Land Application under the Clean Water Act

Authors: Ben Chugg, Nicolas Rothbacher, Alex Feng, Xiaoqi Long, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: This paper introduces a new, highly consequential setting for the use of computer vision for environmental sustainability. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (aka intensive livestock farms or "factory farms") produce significant manure and pollution. Dumping manure in the winter months poses significant environmental risks and violates environmental law in many states. Yet the federal… ▽ More This paper introduces a new, highly consequential setting for the use of computer vision for environmental sustainability. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (aka intensive livestock farms or "factory farms") produce significant manure and pollution. Dumping manure in the winter months poses significant environmental risks and violates environmental law in many states. Yet the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies have relied primarily on self-reporting to monitor such instances of "land application." Our paper makes four contributions. First, we introduce the environmental, policy, and agricultural setting of CAFOs and land application. Second, we provide a new dataset of high-cadence (daily to weekly) 3m/pixel satellite imagery from 2018-20 for 330 CAFOs in Wisconsin with hand labeled instances of land application (n=57,697). Third, we develop an object detection model to predict land application and a system to perform inference in near real-time. We show that this system effectively appears to detect land application (PR AUC = 0.93) and we uncover several outlier facilities which appear to apply regularly and excessively. Last, we estimate the population prevalence of land application events in Winter 2021/22. We show that the prevalence of land application is much higher than what is self-reported by facilities. The system can be used by environmental regulators and interest groups, one of which piloted field visits based on this system this past winter. Overall, our application demonstrates the potential for AI-based computer vision systems to solve major problems in environmental compliance with near-daily imagery. △ Less

Submitted 18 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: Accepted to CIKM '22

Pile of Law: Learning Responsible Data Filtering from the Law and a 256GB Open-Source Legal Dataset

Authors: Peter Henderson, Mark S. Krass, Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Christopher D. Manning, Dan Jurafsky, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: One concern with the rise of large language models lies with their potential for significant harm, particularly from pretraining on biased, obscene, copyrighted, and private information. Emerging ethical approaches have attempted to filter pretraining material, but such approaches have been ad hoc and failed to take context into account. We offer an approach to filtering grounded in law, which has… ▽ More One concern with the rise of large language models lies with their potential for significant harm, particularly from pretraining on biased, obscene, copyrighted, and private information. Emerging ethical approaches have attempted to filter pretraining material, but such approaches have been ad hoc and failed to take context into account. We offer an approach to filtering grounded in law, which has directly addressed the tradeoffs in filtering material. First, we gather and make available the Pile of Law, a 256GB (and growing) dataset of open-source English-language legal and administrative data, covering court opinions, contracts, administrative rules, and legislative records. Pretraining on the Pile of Law may help with legal tasks that have the promise to improve access to justice. Second, we distill the legal norms that governments have developed to constrain the inclusion of toxic or private content into actionable lessons for researchers and discuss how our dataset reflects these norms. Third, we show how the Pile of Law offers researchers the opportunity to learn such filtering rules directly from the data, providing an exciting new research direction in model-based processing. △ Less

Submitted 29 November, 2022; v1 submitted 1 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Comments: Presented at NeurIPS Datasets & Benchmarks (2022)

Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax Audit Models

Authors: Emily Black, Hadi Elzayn, Alexandra Chouldechova, Jacob Goldin, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the field of algorithmic fairness has developed primarily around notions of treating like individuals alike, we instead explore the concept of vertical equity -- appropriately accounting for relevant differences across individuals -… ▽ More This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the field of algorithmic fairness has developed primarily around notions of treating like individuals alike, we instead explore the concept of vertical equity -- appropriately accounting for relevant differences across individuals -- which is a central component of fairness in many public policy settings. Applied to the design of the U.S. individual income tax system, vertical equity relates to the fair allocation of tax and enforcement burdens across taxpayers of different income levels. Through a unique collaboration with the Treasury Department and IRS, we use access to anonymized individual taxpayer microdata, risk-selected audits, and random audits from 2010-14 to study vertical equity in tax administration. In particular, we assess how the use of modern machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity. First, we show how the use of more flexible machine learning (classification) methods -- as opposed to simpler models -- shifts audit burdens from high to middle-income taxpayers. Second, we show that while existing algorithmic fairness techniques can mitigate some disparities across income, they can incur a steep cost to performance. Third, we show that the choice of whether to treat risk of underreporting as a classification or regression problem is highly consequential. Moving from classification to regression models to predict underreporting shifts audit burden substantially toward high income individuals, while increasing revenue. Last, we explore the role of differential audit cost in shaping the audit distribution. We show that a narrow focus on return-on-investment can undermine vertical equity. Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance

Authors: Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Peggy Xu, Colleen Honigsberg, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Much attention has focused on algorithmic audits and impact assessments to hold developers and users of algorithmic systems accountable. But existing algorithmic accountability policy approaches have neglected the lessons from non-algorithmic domains: notably, the importance of interventions that allow for the effective participation of third parties. Our paper synthesizes lessons from other field… ▽ More Much attention has focused on algorithmic audits and impact assessments to hold developers and users of algorithmic systems accountable. But existing algorithmic accountability policy approaches have neglected the lessons from non-algorithmic domains: notably, the importance of interventions that allow for the effective participation of third parties. Our paper synthesizes lessons from other fields on how to craft effective systems of external oversight for algorithmic deployments. First, we discuss the challenges of third party oversight in the current AI landscape. Second, we survey audit systems across domains - e.g., financial, environmental, and health regulation - and show that the institutional design of such audits are far from monolithic. Finally, we survey the evidence base around these design components and spell out the implications for algorithmic auditing. We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability, and sustained focus on institutional design will be required for meaningful third party involvement. △ Less

Submitted 9 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: Presented at 5th Annual ACM/AAAI AI Ethics and Society (AIES) conference

Integrating Reward Maximization and Population Estimation: Sequential Decision-Making for Internal Revenue Service Audit Selection

Authors: Peter Henderson, Ben Chugg, Brandon Anderson, Kristen Altenburger, Alex Turk, John Guyton, Jacob Goldin, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: We introduce a new setting, optimize-and-estimate structured bandits. Here, a policy must select a batch of arms, each characterized by its own context, that would allow it to both maximize reward and maintain an accurate (ideally unbiased) population estimate of the reward. This setting is inherent to many public and private sector applications and often requires handling delayed feedback, small… ▽ More We introduce a new setting, optimize-and-estimate structured bandits. Here, a policy must select a batch of arms, each characterized by its own context, that would allow it to both maximize reward and maintain an accurate (ideally unbiased) population estimate of the reward. This setting is inherent to many public and private sector applications and often requires handling delayed feedback, small data, and distribution shifts. We demonstrate its importance on real data from the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS performs yearly audits of the tax base. Two of its most important objectives are to identify suspected misreporting and to estimate the "tax gap" -- the global difference between the amount paid and true amount owed. Based on a unique collaboration with the IRS, we cast these two processes as a unified optimize-and-estimate structured bandit. We analyze optimize-and-estimate approaches to the IRS problem and propose a novel mechanism for unbiased population estimation that achieves rewards comparable to baseline approaches. This approach has the potential to improve audit efficacy, while maintaining policy-relevant estimates of the tax gap. This has important social consequences given that the current tax gap is estimated at nearly half a trillion dollars. We suggest that this problem setting is fertile ground for further research and we highlight its interesting challenges. The results of this and related research are currently being incorporated into the continual improvement of the IRS audit selection methods. △ Less

Submitted 24 January, 2023; v1 submitted 25 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: Accepted to the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference On Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2023

Mapping industrial poultry operations at scale with deep learning and aerial imagery

Authors: Caleb Robinson, Ben Chugg, Brandon Anderson, Juan M. Lavista Ferres, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) pose serious risks to air, water, and public health, but have proven to be challenging to regulate. The U.S. Government Accountability Office notes that a basic challenge is the lack of comprehensive location information on CAFOs. We use the USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) 1m/pixel aerial imagery to detect poultry CAFOs across the… ▽ More Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) pose serious risks to air, water, and public health, but have proven to be challenging to regulate. The U.S. Government Accountability Office notes that a basic challenge is the lack of comprehensive location information on CAFOs. We use the USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) 1m/pixel aerial imagery to detect poultry CAFOs across the continental United States. We train convolutional neural network (CNN) models to identify individual poultry barns and apply the best performing model to over 42 TB of imagery to create the first national, open-source dataset of poultry CAFOs. We validate the model predictions against held-out validation set on poultry CAFO facility locations from 10 hand-labeled counties in California and demonstrate that this approach has significant potential to fill gaps in environmental monitoring. △ Less

Submitted 21 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Beyond Ads: Sequential Decision-Making Algorithms in Law and Public Policy

Authors: Peter Henderson, Ben Chugg, Brandon Anderson, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: We explore the promises and challenges of employing sequential decision-making algorithms -- such as bandits, reinforcement learning, and active learning -- in law and public policy. While such algorithms have well-characterized performance in the private sector (e.g., online advertising), the tendency to naively apply algorithms motivated by one domain, often online advertisements, can be called… ▽ More We explore the promises and challenges of employing sequential decision-making algorithms -- such as bandits, reinforcement learning, and active learning -- in law and public policy. While such algorithms have well-characterized performance in the private sector (e.g., online advertising), the tendency to naively apply algorithms motivated by one domain, often online advertisements, can be called the "advertisement fallacy." Our main thesis is that law and public policy pose distinct methodological challenges that the machine learning community has not yet addressed. Machine learning will need to address these methodological problems to move "beyond ads." Public law, for instance, can pose multiple objectives, necessitate batched and delayed feedback, and require systems to learn rational, causal decision-making policies, each of which presents novel questions at the research frontier. We discuss a wide range of potential applications of sequential decision-making algorithms in regulation and governance, including public health, environmental protection, tax administration, occupational safety, and benefits adjudication. We use these examples to highlight research needed to render sequential decision making policy-compliant, adaptable, and effective in the public sector. We also note the potential risks of such deployments and describe how sequential decision systems can also facilitate the discovery of harms. We hope our work inspires more investigation of sequential decision making in law and public policy, which provide unique challenges for machine learning researchers with potential for significant social benefit. △ Less

Submitted 29 November, 2022; v1 submitted 13 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Comments: Version 1 presented at Causal Inference Challenges in Sequential Decision Making: Bridging Theory and Practice (2021), a NeurIPS 2021 Workshop; Version 2 presented at the 2nd ACM Symposium on Computer Science and Law (2022) (DOI: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3511265.3550439)

Reconciling Risk Allocation and Prevalence Estimation in Public Health Using Batched Bandits

Authors: Ben Chugg, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: In many public health settings, there is a perceived tension between allocating resources to known vulnerable areas and learning about the overall prevalence of the problem. Inspired by a door-to-door Covid-19 testing program we helped design, we combine multi-armed bandit strategies and insights from sampling theory to demonstrate how to recover accurate prevalence estimates while continuing to a… ▽ More In many public health settings, there is a perceived tension between allocating resources to known vulnerable areas and learning about the overall prevalence of the problem. Inspired by a door-to-door Covid-19 testing program we helped design, we combine multi-armed bandit strategies and insights from sampling theory to demonstrate how to recover accurate prevalence estimates while continuing to allocate resources to at-risk areas. We use the outbreak of an infectious disease as our running example. The public health setting has several characteristics distinguishing it from typical bandit settings, such as distribution shift (the true disease prevalence is changing with time) and batched sampling (multiple decisions must be made simultaneously). Nevertheless, we demonstrate that several bandit algorithms are capable out-performing greedy resource allocation strategies, which often perform worse than random allocation as they fail to notice outbreaks in new areas. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: Published in Machine Learning in Public Health Workshop at NeurIPS 2021

On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

Authors: Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri Chatterji, Annie Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dora Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh , et al. (89 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their cap… ▽ More AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature. △ Less

Submitted 12 July, 2022; v1 submitted 16 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Comments: Authored by the Center for Research on Foundation Models (CRFM) at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). Report page with citation guidelines: https://crfm.stanford.edu/report.html

Context-Aware Legal Citation Recommendation using Deep Learning

Authors: Zihan Huang, Charles Low, Mengqiu Teng, Hongyi Zhang, Daniel E. Ho, Mark S. Krass, Matthias Grabmair

Abstract: Lawyers and judges spend a large amount of time researching the proper legal authority to cite while drafting decisions. In this paper, we develop a citation recommendation tool that can help improve efficiency in the process of opinion drafting. We train four types of machine learning models, including a citation-list based method (collaborative filtering) and three context-based methods (text si… ▽ More Lawyers and judges spend a large amount of time researching the proper legal authority to cite while drafting decisions. In this paper, we develop a citation recommendation tool that can help improve efficiency in the process of opinion drafting. We train four types of machine learning models, including a citation-list based method (collaborative filtering) and three context-based methods (text similarity, BiLSTM and RoBERTa classifiers). Our experiments show that leveraging local textual context improves recommendation, and that deep neural models achieve decent performance. We show that non-deep text-based methods benefit from access to structured case metadata, but deep models only benefit from such access when predicting from context of insufficient length. We also find that, even after extensive training, RoBERTa does not outperform a recurrent neural model, despite its benefits of pretraining. Our behavior analysis of the RoBERTa model further shows that predictive performance is stable across time and citation classes. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Comments: 10 pages published in Proceedings of ICAIL 2021; link to data here: https://reglab.stanford.edu/data/bva-case-citation-dataset ; code available here: https://github.com/TUMLegalTech/bva-citation-prediction

Enhancing Environmental Enforcement with Near Real-Time Monitoring: Likelihood-Based Detection of Structural Expansion of Intensive Livestock Farms

Authors: Ben Chugg, Brandon Anderson, Seiji Eicher, Sandy Lee, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Much environmental enforcement in the United States has historically relied on either self-reported data or physical, resource-intensive, infrequent inspections. Advances in remote sensing and computer vision, however, have the potential to augment compliance monitoring by detecting early warning signs of noncompliance. We demonstrate a process for rapid identification of significant structural ex… ▽ More Much environmental enforcement in the United States has historically relied on either self-reported data or physical, resource-intensive, infrequent inspections. Advances in remote sensing and computer vision, however, have the potential to augment compliance monitoring by detecting early warning signs of noncompliance. We demonstrate a process for rapid identification of significant structural expansion using Planet's 3m/pixel satellite imagery products and focusing on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in the US as a test case. Unpermitted building expansion has been a particular challenge with CAFOs, which pose significant health and environmental risks. Using new hand-labeled dataset of 145,053 images of 1,513 CAFOs, we combine state-of-the-art building segmentation with a likelihood-based change-point detection model to provide a robust signal of building expansion (AUC = 0.86). A major advantage of this approach is that it can work with higher cadence (daily to weekly), but lower resolution (3m/pixel), satellite imagery than previously used in similar environmental settings. It is also highly generalizable and thus provides a near real-time monitoring tool to prioritize enforcement resources in other settings where unpermitted construction poses environmental risk, e.g. zoning, habitat modification, or wetland protection. △ Less

Submitted 2 August, 2021; v1 submitted 28 May, 2021; originally announced May 2021.

Journal ref: International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, Volume 103, 2021, 102463, ISSN 0303-2434

When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Dataset

Authors: Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Brandon R. Anderson, Peter Henderson, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: While self-supervised learning has made rapid advances in natural language processing, it remains unclear when researchers should engage in resource-intensive domain-specific pretraining (domain pretraining). The law, puzzlingly, has yielded few documented instances of substantial gains to domain pretraining in spite of the fact that legal language is widely seen to be unique. We hypothesize that… ▽ More While self-supervised learning has made rapid advances in natural language processing, it remains unclear when researchers should engage in resource-intensive domain-specific pretraining (domain pretraining). The law, puzzlingly, has yielded few documented instances of substantial gains to domain pretraining in spite of the fact that legal language is widely seen to be unique. We hypothesize that these existing results stem from the fact that existing legal NLP tasks are too easy and fail to meet conditions for when domain pretraining can help. To address this, we first present CaseHOLD (Case Holdings On Legal Decisions), a new dataset comprised of over 53,000+ multiple choice questions to identify the relevant holding of a cited case. This dataset presents a fundamental task to lawyers and is both legally meaningful and difficult from an NLP perspective (F1 of 0.4 with a BiLSTM baseline). Second, we assess performance gains on CaseHOLD and existing legal NLP datasets. While a Transformer architecture (BERT) pretrained on a general corpus (Google Books and Wikipedia) improves performance, domain pretraining (using corpus of approximately 3.5M decisions across all courts in the U.S. that is larger than BERT's) with a custom legal vocabulary exhibits the most substantial performance gains with CaseHOLD (gain of 7.2% on F1, representing a 12% improvement on BERT) and consistent performance gains across two other legal tasks. Third, we show that domain pretraining may be warranted when the task exhibits sufficient similarity to the pretraining corpus: the level of performance increase in three legal tasks was directly tied to the domain specificity of the task. Our findings inform when researchers should engage resource-intensive pretraining and show that Transformer-based architectures, too, learn embeddings suggestive of distinct legal language. △ Less

Submitted 5 July, 2021; v1 submitted 17 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Comments: ICAIL 2021. Code & data available at https://github.com/reglab/casehold

Temporal Cluster Matching for Change Detection of Structures from Satellite Imagery

Authors: Caleb Robinson, Anthony Ortiz, Juan M. Lavista Ferres, Brandon Anderson, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Longitudinal studies are vital to understanding dynamic changes of the planet, but labels (e.g., buildings, facilities, roads) are often available only for a single point in time. We propose a general model, Temporal Cluster Matching (TCM), for detecting building changes in time series of remotely sensed imagery when footprint labels are observed only once. The intuition behind the model is that t… ▽ More Longitudinal studies are vital to understanding dynamic changes of the planet, but labels (e.g., buildings, facilities, roads) are often available only for a single point in time. We propose a general model, Temporal Cluster Matching (TCM), for detecting building changes in time series of remotely sensed imagery when footprint labels are observed only once. The intuition behind the model is that the relationship between spectral values inside and outside of building's footprint will change when a building is constructed (or demolished). For instance, in rural settings, the pre-construction area may look similar to the surrounding environment until the building is constructed. Similarly, in urban settings, the pre-construction areas will look different from the surrounding environment until construction. We further propose a heuristic method for selecting the parameters of our model which allows it to be applied in novel settings without requiring data labeling efforts (to fit the parameters). We apply our model over a dataset of poultry barns from 2016/2017 high-resolution aerial imagery in the Delmarva Peninsula and a dataset of solar farms from a 2020 mosaic of Sentinel 2 imagery in India. Our results show that our model performs as well when fit using the proposed heuristic as it does when fit with labeled data, and further, that supervised versions of our model perform the best among all the baselines we test against. Finally, we show that our proposed approach can act as an effective data augmentation strategy -- it enables researchers to augment existing structure footprint labels along the time dimension and thus use imagery from multiple points in time to train deep learning models. We show that this improves the spatial generalization of such models when evaluated on the same change detection task. △ Less

Submitted 29 June, 2021; v1 submitted 17 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

Comments: Published in ACM COMPASS 2021

Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness

Authors: Daniel E. Ho, Alice Xiang

Abstract: While there has been a flurry of research in algorithmic fairness, what is less recognized is that modern antidiscrimination law may prohibit the adoption of such techniques. We make three contributions. First, we discuss how such approaches will likely be deemed "algorithmic affirmative action," posing serious legal risks of violating equal protection, particularly under the higher education juri… ▽ More While there has been a flurry of research in algorithmic fairness, what is less recognized is that modern antidiscrimination law may prohibit the adoption of such techniques. We make three contributions. First, we discuss how such approaches will likely be deemed "algorithmic affirmative action," posing serious legal risks of violating equal protection, particularly under the higher education jurisprudence. Such cases have increasingly turned toward anticlassification, demanding "individualized consideration" and barring formal, quantitative weights for race regardless of purpose. This case law is hence fundamentally incompatible with fairness in machine learning. Second, we argue that the government-contracting cases offer an alternative grounding for algorithmic fairness, as these cases permit explicit and quantitative race-based remedies based on historical discrimination by the actor. Third, while limited, this doctrinal approach also guides the future of algorithmic fairness, mandating that adjustments be calibrated to the entity's responsibility for historical discrimination causing present-day disparities. The contractor cases provide a legally viable path for algorithmic fairness under current constitutional doctrine but call for more research at the intersection of algorithmic fairness and causal inference to ensure that bias mitigation is tailored to specific causes and mechanisms of bias. △ Less

Submitted 18 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: 12 pages, 3 figures

Journal ref: 10/30/20 U. Chi. L. Rev. Online 143, https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/10/30/aa-ho-xiang/

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