Search for: All records

Responsible AI (RAI) is the science and practice of ensuring the design, development, use, and oversight of AI are socially sustainable---benefiting diverse stakeholders while controlling the risks. Achieving this goal requires active engagement and participation from the broader public. This paper introduces We are AI: Taking Control of Technology, a public education course that brings the topics of AI and RAI to the general audience in a peer-learning setting. We outline the goals behind the course's development, discuss the multi-year iterative process that shaped its creation, and summarize its content. We also discuss two offerings of We are AI to an active and engaged group of librarians and professional staff at New York University, highlighting successes and areas for improvement. The course materials, including a multilingual comic book series by the same name, are publicly available and can be used independently. By sharing our experience in creating and teaching We are AI, we aim to introduce these resources to the community of AI educators, researchers, and practitioners, supporting their public education efforts. 

Differentially private (DP) mechanisms have been deployed in a variety of high-impact social settings (perhaps most notably by the U.S. Census). Since all DP mechanisms involve adding noise to results of statistical queries, they are expected to impact our ability to accurately analyze and learn from data, in effect trading off privacy with utility. Alarmingly, the impact of DP on utility can vary significantly among different sub-populations. A simple way to reduce this disparity is with stratification. First compute an independent private estimate for each group in the data set (which may be the intersection of several protected classes), then, to compute estimates of global statistics, appropriately recombine these group estimates. Our main observation is that naive stratification often yields high-accuracy estimates of population-level statistics, without the need for additional privacy budget. We support this observation theoretically and empirically. Our theoretical results center on the private mean estimation problem, while our empirical results center on extensive experiments on private data synthesis to demonstrate the effectiveness of stratification on a variety of private mechanisms. Overall, we argue that this straightforward approach provides a strong baseline against which future work on reducing utility disparities of DP mechanisms should be compared. 

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers are increasingly proposed to afford public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy (and, in some cases, utility), but limited empirical evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, multivariate correlations, the accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data and comparing the results. 

Making fair decisions is crucial to ethically implementing machine learning algorithms in social settings. In this work, we consider the celebrated definition of counterfactual fairness. We begin by showing that an algorithm which satisfies counterfactual fairness also satisfies demographic parity, a far simpler fairness constraint. Similarly, we show that all algorithms satisfying demographic parity can be trivially modified to satisfy counterfactual fairness. Together, our results indicate that counterfactual fairness is basically equivalent to demographic parity, which has important implications for the growing body of work on counterfactual fairness. We then validate our theoretical findings empirically, analyzing three existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness against three simple benchmarks. We find that two simple benchmark algorithms outperform all three existing algorithms---in terms of fairness, accuracy, and efficiency---on several data sets. Our analysis leads us to formalize a concrete fairness goal: to preserve the order of individuals within protected groups. We believe transparency around the ordering of individuals within protected groups makes fair algorithms more trustworthy. By design, the two simple benchmark algorithms satisfy this goal while the existing algorithms do not. 

The “impossibility theorem” — which is considered foundational in algorithmic fairness literature — asserts that there must be trade-offs between common notions of fairness and performance when fitting statistical models, except in two special cases: when the prevalence of the outcome being predicted is equal across groups, or when a perfectly accurate predictor is used. However, theory does not always translate to practice. In this work, we challenge the implications of the impossibility theorem in practical settings. First, we show analytically that, by slightly relaxing the impossibility theorem (to accommodate a practitioner’s perspective of fairness), it becomes possible to identify abundant sets of models that satisfy seemingly incompatible fairness constraints. Second, we demonstrate the existence of these models through extensive experiments on five real-world datasets. We conclude by offering tools and guidance for practitioners to understand when — and to what degree — fairness along multiple criteria can be achieved. This work has an important implication for the community: achieving fairness along multiple metrics for multiple groups (and their intersections) is much more possible than was previously believed. 

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers are increasingly proposed to afford public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy (and, in some cases, utility), but limited empirical evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, multivariate correlations, the accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR social science repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that, for reasonable privacy regimes, state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. Given these results, we advocate for a new class of mechanisms that can reorder the priorities for DP data synthesis: favor stronger guarantees for utility (as measured by epistemic parity) and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment.