Search for: All records

A growing number of college applications has presented an annual challenge for college admissions in the United States. Admission offices have historically relied on standardized test scores to organize large applicant pools into viable subsets for review. However, this approach may be subject to bias in test scores and selection bias in test-taking with recent trends toward test-optional admission. We explore a machine learning-based approach to replace the role of standardized tests in subset generation while taking into account a wide range of factors extracted from student applications to support a more holistic review. We evaluate the approach on data from an undergraduate admission office at a selective US institution (13,248 applications). We find that a prediction model trained on past admission data outperforms an SAT-based heuristic and matches the demographic composition of the last admitted class. We discuss the risks and opportunities for how such a learned model could be leveraged to support human decision-making in college admissions. 

Discussion of the “right to an explanation” has been increasingly relevant because of its potential utility for auditing automated decision systems, as well as for making objections to such decisions. However, most existing work on explanations focuses on collaborative environments, where designers are motivated to implement good-faith explanations that reveal potential weaknesses of a decision system. This motivation may not hold in an auditing environment. Thus, we ask: how much could explanations be used maliciously to defend a decision system? In this paper, we demonstrate how a black-box explanation system developed to defend a black-box decision system could manipulate decision recipients or auditors into accepting an intentionally discriminatory decision model. In a case-by-case scenario where decision recipients are unable to share their cases and explanations, we find that most individual decision recipients could receive a verifiable justification, even if the decision system is intentionally discriminatory. In a system-wide scenario where every decision is shared, we find that while justifications frequently contradict each other, there is no intuitive threshold to determine if these contradictions are because of malicious justifications or because of simplicity requirements of these justifications conflicting with model behavior. We end with discussion of how system-wide metrics may be more useful than explanation systems for evaluating overall decision fairness, while explanations could be useful outside of fairness auditing. 

Many large-scale recommender systems consist of two stages. The first stage efficiently screens the complete pool of items for a small subset of promising candidates, from which the second-stage model curates the final recommendations. In this paper, we investigate how to ensure group fairness to the items in this two-stage architecture. In particular, we find that existing first-stage recommenders might select an irrecoverably unfair set of candidates such that there is no hope for the second-stage recommender to deliver fair recommendations. To this end, motivated by recent advances in uncertainty quantification, we propose two threshold-policy selection rules that can provide distribution-free and finite-sample guarantees on fairness in first-stage recommenders. More concretely, given any relevance model of queries and items and a point-wise lower confidence bound on the expected number of relevant items for each threshold-policy, the two rules find near-optimal sets of candidates that contain enough relevant items in expectation from each group of items. To instantiate the rules, we demonstrate how to derive such confidence bounds from potentially partial and biased user feedback data, which are abundant in many large-scale recommender systems. In addition, we provide both finite-sample and asymptotic analyses of how close the two threshold selection rules are to the optimal thresholds. Beyond this theoretical analysis, we show empirically that these two rules can consistently select enough relevant items from each group while minimizing the size of the candidate sets for a wide range of settings. 

Automated decision support systems promise to help human experts solve multiclass classification tasks more efficiently and accurately. However, existing systems typically require experts to understand when to cede agency to the system or when to exercise their own agency. Otherwise, the experts may be better off solving the classification tasks on their own. In this work, we develop an automated decision support system that, by design, does not require experts to understand when to trust the system to improve performance. Rather than providing (single) label predictions and letting experts decide when to trust these predictions, our system provides sets of label predictions constructed using conformal prediction—prediction sets—and forcefully asks experts to predict labels from these sets. By using conformal prediction, our system can precisely trade-off the probability that the true label is not in the prediction set, which determines how frequently our system will mislead the experts, and the size of the prediction set, which determines the difficulty of the classification task the experts need to solve using our system. In addition, we develop an efficient and near-optimal search method to find the conformal predictor under which the experts benefit the most from using our system. Simulation experiments using synthetic and real expert predictions demonstrate that our system may help experts make more accurate predictions and is robust to the accuracy of the classifier the conformal predictor relies on. 

In recent years, a new line of research has taken an interventional view of recommender systems, where recommendations are viewed as actions that the system takes to have a desired effect. This interventional view has led to the development of counterfactual inference techniques for evaluating and optimizing recommendation policies. This article explains how these techniques enable unbiased offline evaluation and learning despite biased data, and how they can inform considerations of fairness and equity in recommender systems. 

Ranking items by their probability of relevance has long been the goal of conventional ranking systems. While this maximizes traditional criteria of ranking performance, there is a growing understanding that it is an oversimplification in online platforms that serve not only a diverse user population, but also the producers of the items. In particular, ranking algorithms are expected to be fair in how they serve all groups of users --- not just the majority group --- and they also need to be fair in how they divide exposure among the items. These fairness considerations can partially be met by adding diversity to the rankings, as done in several recent works. However, we show in this paper that user fairness, item fairness and diversity are fundamentally different concepts. In particular, we find that algorithms that consider only one of the three desiderata can fail to satisfy and even harm the other two. To overcome this shortcoming, we present the first ranking algorithm that explicitly enforces all three desiderata. The algorithm optimizes user and item fairness as a convex optimization problem which can be solved optimally. From its solution, a ranking policy can be derived via a novel Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition algorithm that optimizes diversity. Beyond the theoretical analysis, we investigate empirically on a new benchmark dataset how effectively the proposed ranking algorithm can control user fairness, item fairness and diversity, as well as the trade-offs between them.