Operationalizing the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Recommendations for Practitioners, Researchers, and Policy Makers

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly employed in diverse real-world applications, there has been significant interest in regulating these tools. To this end, several regulatory frameworks have been introduced by different countries worldwide. For example, the European Union recently passed the AI Act, the White House issued an Executive Order on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (AI BoR). Many of these frameworks emphasize the need for auditing and improving the trustworthiness of AI tools, underscoring the importance of safety, privacy, explainability, fairness, and human fallback options. Although these regulatory frameworks highlight the necessity of enforcement, practitioners often lack detailed guidance on implementing them. Furthermore, the extensive research on operationalizing each of these aspects is frequently buried in technical papers that are difficult for practitioners to parse. In this write-up, we address this shortcoming by providing an accessible overview of existing literature related to operationalizing regulatory principles. We provide easy-to-understand summaries of state-of-the-art literature and highlight various gaps that exist between regulatory guidelines and existing AI research, including the trade-offs that emerge during operationalization. We hope that this work not only serves as a starting point for practitioners interested in learning more about operationalizing the regulatory guidelines outlined in the Blueprint for an AI BoR but also provides researchers with a list of critical open problems and gaps between regulations and state-of-the-art AI research. Finally, we note that this is a working paper and we invite feedback in line with the purpose of this document as described in the introduction.

To Pool or Not To Pool: Analyzing the Regularizing Effects of Group-Fair Training on Shared Models

In fair machine learning, one source of performance disparities between groups is over-fitting to groups with relatively few training samples. We derive group-specific bounds on the generalization error of welfare-centric fair machine learning that benefit from the larger sample size of the majority group. We do this by considering group-specific Rademacher averages over a restricted hypothesis class, which contains the family of models likely to perform well with respect to a fair learning objective (e.g., a power-mean). Our simulations demonstrate these bounds improve over a naive method, as expected by theory, with particularly significant improvement for smaller group sizes.

Measuring and mitigating voting access disparities: a study of race and polling locations in Florida and North Carolina

Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the United States. Barriers to voting have taken many forms over the decades. A history of violent explicit discouragement has shifted to more subtle access limitations that can include long lines and wait times, long travel times to reach a polling station, and other logistical barriers to voting. Our focus in this work is on quantifying disparities in voting access pertaining to the overall time-to-vote, and how they could be remedied via a better choice of polling location or provisioning more sites where voters can cast ballots. However, appropriately calibrating access disparities is difficult because of the need to account for factors such as population density and different community expectations for reasonable travel times. In this paper, we quantify access to polling locations, developing a methodology for the calibrated measurement of racial disparities in polling location "load" and distance to polling locations. We apply this methodology to a study of real-world data from Florida and North Carolina to identify disparities in voting access from the 2020 election. We also introduce algorithms, with modifications to handle scale, that can reduce these disparities by suggesting new polling locations from a given list of identified public locations (including schools and libraries). Applying these algorithms on the 2020 election location data also helps to expose and explore tradeoffs between the cost of allocating more polling locations and the potential impact on access disparities. The developed voting access measurement methodology and algorithmic remediation technique is a first step in better polling location assignment.

Precarity: Modeling the Long Term Effects of Compounded Decisions on Individual Instability

When it comes to studying the impacts of decision making, the research has been largely focused on examining the fairness of the decisions, the long-term effects of the decision pipelines, and utility-based perspectives considering both the decision-maker and the individuals. However, there has hardly been any focus on precarity which is the term that encapsulates the instability in people's lives. That is, a negative outcome can overspread to other decisions and measures of well-being. Studying precarity necessitates a shift in focus - from the point of view of the decision-maker to the perspective of the decision subject. This centering of the subject is an important direction that unlocks the importance of parting with aggregate measures to examine the long-term effects of decision making. To address this issue, in this paper, we propose a modeling framework that simulates the effects of compounded decision-making on precarity over time. Through our simulations, we are able to show the heterogeneity of precarity by the non-uniform ruinous aftereffects of negative decisions on different income classes of the underlying population and how policy interventions can help mitigate such effects.

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding Artificial Intelligence's Impact on Society

Innovations in AI have focused primarily on the questions of "what" and "how"-algorithms for finding patterns in web searches, for instance-without adequate attention to the possible harms (such as privacy, bias, or manipulation) and without adequate consideration of the societal context in which these systems operate. In part, this is driven by incentives and forces in the tech industry, where a more product-driven focus tends to drown out broader reflective concerns about potential harms and misframings. But this focus on what and how is largely a reflection of the engineering and mathematics-focused training in computer science, which emphasizes the building of tools and development of computational concepts. As a result of this tight technical focus, and the rapid, worldwide explosion in its use, AI has come with a storm of unanticipated socio-technical problems, ranging from algorithms that act in racially or gender-biased ways, get caught in feedback loops that perpetuate inequalities, or enable unprecedented behavioral monitoring surveillance that challenges the fundamental values of free, democratic societies. Given that AI is no longer solely the domain of technologists but rather of society as a whole, we need tighter coupling of computer science and those disciplines that study society and societal values.

Fair clustering via equitable group representations

What does it mean for a clustering to be fair? One popular approach seeks to ensure that each cluster contains groups in (roughly) the same proportion in which they exist in the population. The normative principle at play is balance: any cluster might act as a representative of the data, and thus should reflect its diversity. But clustering also captures a different form of representativeness. A core principle in most clustering problems is that a cluster center should be representative of the cluster it represents, by being "close" to the points associated with it. This is so that we can effectively replace the points by their cluster centers without significant loss in fidelity, and indeed is a common "use case" for clustering. For such a clustering to be fair, the centers should "represent" different groups equally well. We call such a clustering a group-representative clustering. In this paper, we study the structure and computation of group-representative clusterings. We show that this notion naturally parallels the development of fairness notions in classification, with direct analogs of ideas like demographic parity and equal opportunity. We demonstrate how these notions are distinct from and cannot be captured by balance-based notions of fairness. We present approximation algorithms for group representative $k$-median clustering and couple this with an empirical evaluation on various real-world data sets.

Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures

Game-theoretic formulations of feature importance have become popular as a way to "explain" machine learning models. These methods define a cooperative game between the features of a model and distribute influence among these input elements using some form of the game's unique Shapley values. Justification for these methods rests on two pillars: their desirable mathematical properties, and their applicability to specific motivations for explanations. We show that mathematical problems arise when Shapley values are used for feature importance and that the solutions to mitigate these necessarily induce further complexity, such as the need for causal reasoning. We also draw on additional literature to argue that Shapley values do not provide explanations which suit human-centric goals of explainability.

Equalizing Recourse across Groups

The rise in machine learning-assisted decision-making has led to concerns about the fairness of the decisions and techniques to mitigate problems of discrimination. If a negative decision is made about an individual (denying a loan, rejecting an application for housing, and so on) justice dictates that we be able to ask how we might change circumstances to get a favorable decision the next time. Moreover, the ability to change circumstances (a better education, improved credentials) should not be limited to only those with access to expensive resources. In other words, \emph{recourse} for negative decisions should be considered a desirable value that can be equalized across (demographically defined) groups. This paper describes how to build models that make accurate predictions while still ensuring that the penalties for a negative outcome do not disadvantage different groups disproportionately. We measure recourse as the distance of an individual from the decision boundary of a classifier. We then introduce a regularized objective to minimize the difference in recourse across groups. We explore linear settings and further extend recourse to non-linear settings as well as model-agnostic settings where the exact distance from boundary cannot be calculated. Our results show that we can successfully decrease the unfairness in recourse while maintaining classifier performance.

Disentangling Influence: Using Disentangled Representations to Audit Model Predictions

Motivated by the need to audit complex and black box models, there has been extensive research on quantifying how data features influence model predictions. Feature influence can be direct (a direct influence on model outcomes) and indirect (model outcomes are influenced via proxy features). Feature influence can also be expressed in aggregate over the training or test data or locally with respect to a single point. Current research has typically focused on one of each of these dimensions. In this paper, we develop disentangled influence audits, a procedure to audit the indirect influence of features. Specifically, we show that disentangled representations provide a mechanism to identify proxy features in the dataset, while allowing an explicit computation of feature influence on either individual outcomes or aggregate-level outcomes. We show through both theory and experiments that disentangled influence audits can both detect proxy features and show, for each individual or in aggregate, which of these proxy features affects the classifier being audited the most. In this respect, our method is more powerful than existing methods for ascertaining feature influence.

Fairness in representation: quantifying stereotyping as a representational harm

While harms of allocation have been increasingly studied as part of the subfield of algorithmic fairness, harms of representation have received considerably less attention. In this paper, we formalize two notions of stereotyping and show how they manifest in later allocative harms within the machine learning pipeline. We also propose mitigation strategies and demonstrate their effectiveness on synthetic datasets.