Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Software

AI governance efforts increasingly rely on audit standards: agreed-upon practices for conducting audits. However, poorly designed standards can hide and lend credibility to inadequate systems. We explore how an audit standard's design influences its effectiveness through a case study of ASB 018, a standard for auditing probabilistic genotyping software -- software that the U.S. criminal legal system increasingly uses to analyze DNA samples. Through qualitative analysis of ASB 018 and five audit reports, we identify numerous gaps between the standard's desired outcomes and the auditing practices it enables. For instance, ASB 018 envisions that compliant audits establish restrictions on software use based on observed failures. However, audits can comply without establishing such boundaries. We connect these gaps to the design of the standard's requirements such as vague language and undefined terms. We conclude with recommendations for designing audit standards and evaluating their effectiveness.

Targeted Learning for Data Fairness

Data and algorithms have the potential to produce and perpetuate discrimination and disparate treatment. As such, significant effort has been invested in developing approaches to defining, detecting, and eliminating unfair outcomes in algorithms. In this paper, we focus on performing statistical inference for fairness. Prior work in fairness inference has largely focused on inferring the fairness properties of a given predictive algorithm. Here, we expand fairness inference by evaluating fairness in the data generating process itself, referred to here as data fairness. We perform inference on data fairness using targeted learning, a flexible framework for nonparametric inference. We derive estimators demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information. Additionally, we find that our estimators for probabilistic metrics exploit double robustness. To validate our approach, we perform several simulations and apply our estimators to real data.

Longitudinal Counterfactuals: Constraints and Opportunities

Counterfactual explanations are a common approach to providing recourse to data subjects. However, current methodology can produce counterfactuals that cannot be achieved by the subject, making the use of counterfactuals for recourse difficult to justify in practice. Though there is agreement that plausibility is an important quality when using counterfactuals for algorithmic recourse, ground truth plausibility continues to be difficult to quantify. In this paper, we propose using longitudinal data to assess and improve plausibility in counterfactuals. In particular, we develop a metric that compares longitudinal differences to counterfactual differences, allowing us to evaluate how similar a counterfactual is to prior observed changes. Furthermore, we use this metric to generate plausible counterfactuals. Finally, we discuss some of the inherent difficulties of using counterfactuals for recourse.