Showing 1–10 of 10 results for author: Stapleton, L

Advancing a Consent-Forward Paradigm for Digital Mental Health Data

Authors: Sachin R. Pendse, Logan Stapleton, Neha Kumar, Munmun De Choudhury, Stevie Chancellor

Abstract: The field of digital mental health is advancing at a rapid pace. Passively collected data from user engagements with digital tools and services continue to contribute new insights into mental health and illness. As the field of digital mental health grows, a concerning norm has been established -- digital service users are given little say over how their data is collected, shared, or used to gener… ▽ More The field of digital mental health is advancing at a rapid pace. Passively collected data from user engagements with digital tools and services continue to contribute new insights into mental health and illness. As the field of digital mental health grows, a concerning norm has been established -- digital service users are given little say over how their data is collected, shared, or used to generate revenue for private companies. Given a long history of service user exclusion from data collection practices, we propose an alternative approach that is attentive to this history: the consent-forward paradigm. This paradigm embeds principles of affirmative consent in the design of digital mental health tools and services, strengthening trust through designing around individual choices and needs, and proactively protecting users from unexpected harm. In this perspective, we outline practical steps to implement this paradigm, toward ensuring that people searching for care have the safest experiences possible. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: 15 pages with 2 tables

Seeing Seeds Beyond Weeds: Green Teaming Generative AI for Beneficial Uses

Authors: Logan Stapleton, Jordan Taylor, Sarah Fox, Tongshuang Wu, Haiyi Zhu

Abstract: Large generative AI models (GMs) like GPT and DALL-E are trained to generate content for general, wide-ranging purposes. GM content filters are generalized to filter out content which has a risk of harm in many cases, e.g., hate speech. However, prohibited content is not always harmful -- there are instances where generating prohibited content can be beneficial. So, when GMs filter out content, th… ▽ More Large generative AI models (GMs) like GPT and DALL-E are trained to generate content for general, wide-ranging purposes. GM content filters are generalized to filter out content which has a risk of harm in many cases, e.g., hate speech. However, prohibited content is not always harmful -- there are instances where generating prohibited content can be beneficial. So, when GMs filter out content, they preclude beneficial use cases along with harmful ones. Which use cases are precluded reflects the values embedded in GM content filtering. Recent work on red teaming proposes methods to bypass GM content filters to generate harmful content. We coin the term green teaming to describe methods of bypassing GM content filters to design for beneficial use cases. We showcase green teaming by: 1) Using ChatGPT as a virtual patient to simulate a person experiencing suicidal ideation, for suicide support training; 2) Using Codex to intentionally generate buggy solutions to train students on debugging; and 3) Examining an Instagram page using Midjourney to generate images of anti-LGBTQ+ politicians in drag. Finally, we discuss how our use cases demonstrate green teaming as both a practical design method and a mode of critique, which problematizes and subverts current understandings of harms and values in generative AI. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders

Authors: Logan Stapleton, Min Hun Lee, Diana Qing, Marya Wright, Alexandra Chouldechova, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu

Abstract: Child welfare agencies across the United States are turning to data-driven predictive technologies (commonly called predictive analytics) which use government administrative data to assist workers' decision-making. While some prior work has explored impacted stakeholders' concerns with current uses of data-driven predictive risk models (PRMs), less work has asked stakeholders whether such tools ou… ▽ More Child welfare agencies across the United States are turning to data-driven predictive technologies (commonly called predictive analytics) which use government administrative data to assist workers' decision-making. While some prior work has explored impacted stakeholders' concerns with current uses of data-driven predictive risk models (PRMs), less work has asked stakeholders whether such tools ought to be used in the first place. In this work, we conducted a set of seven design workshops with 35 stakeholders who have been impacted by the child welfare system or who work in it to understand their beliefs and concerns around PRMs, and to engage them in imagining new uses of data and technologies in the child welfare system. We found that participants worried current PRMs perpetuate or exacerbate existing problems in child welfare. Participants suggested new ways to use data and data-driven tools to better support impacted communities and suggested paths to mitigate possible harms of these tools. Participants also suggested low-tech or no-tech alternatives to PRMs to address problems in child welfare. Our study sheds light on how researchers and designers can work in solidarity with impacted communities, possibly to circumvent or oppose child welfare agencies. △ Less

Submitted 18 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: 10 pages in main body; 4 pages in appendix; Published in the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT'22)

Extended Analysis of "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions"

Authors: Logan Stapleton, Hao-Fei Cheng, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu

Abstract: This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset… ▽ More This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper. △ Less

Submitted 29 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

A Sandbox Tool to Bias(Stress)-Test Fairness Algorithms

Authors: Nil-Jana Akpinar, Manish Nagireddy, Logan Stapleton, Hao-Fei Cheng, Haiyi Zhu, Steven Wu, Hoda Heidari

Abstract: Motivated by the growing importance of reducing unfairness in ML predictions, Fair-ML researchers have presented an extensive suite of algorithmic 'fairness-enhancing' remedies. Most existing algorithms, however, are agnostic to the sources of the observed unfairness. As a result, the literature currently lacks guiding frameworks to specify conditions under which each algorithmic intervention can… ▽ More Motivated by the growing importance of reducing unfairness in ML predictions, Fair-ML researchers have presented an extensive suite of algorithmic 'fairness-enhancing' remedies. Most existing algorithms, however, are agnostic to the sources of the observed unfairness. As a result, the literature currently lacks guiding frameworks to specify conditions under which each algorithmic intervention can potentially alleviate the underpinning cause of unfairness. To close this gap, we scrutinize the underlying biases (e.g., in the training data or design choices) that cause observational unfairness. We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases and assess the effectiveness of algorithmic remedies in the presence of specific types of bias. We call this process the bias(stress)-testing of algorithmic interventions. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. This stylized setup offers the distinct capability of testing fairness interventions beyond observational data and against an unbiased benchmark. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention in the biased setting with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection. We illustrate the utility of our toolkit via a proof-of-concept case study on synthetic data. Our empirical analysis showcases the type of insights that can be obtained through our simulations. △ Less

Submitted 13 December, 2022; v1 submitted 21 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: Appeared as a poster at the second ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO'22)

Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support

Authors: Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu, Kenneth Holstein

Abstract: AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they cur… ▽ More AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making. △ Less

Submitted 5 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: 2022 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

ACM Class: K.4.0

Incentivizing Compliance with Algorithmic Instruments

Authors: Daniel Ngo, Logan Stapleton, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: Randomized experiments can be susceptible to selection bias due to potential non-compliance by the participants. While much of the existing work has studied compliance as a static behavior, we propose a game-theoretic model to study compliance as dynamic behavior that may change over time. In rounds, a social planner interacts with a sequence of heterogeneous agents who arrive with their unobserve… ▽ More Randomized experiments can be susceptible to selection bias due to potential non-compliance by the participants. While much of the existing work has studied compliance as a static behavior, we propose a game-theoretic model to study compliance as dynamic behavior that may change over time. In rounds, a social planner interacts with a sequence of heterogeneous agents who arrive with their unobserved private type that determines both their prior preferences across the actions (e.g., control and treatment) and their baseline rewards without taking any treatment. The planner provides each agent with a randomized recommendation that may alter their beliefs and their action selection. We develop a novel recommendation mechanism that views the planner's recommendation as a form of instrumental variable (IV) that only affects an agents' action selection, but not the observed rewards. We construct such IVs by carefully map** the history -- the interactions between the planner and the previous agents -- to a random recommendation. Even though the initial agents may be completely non-compliant, our mechanism can incentivize compliance over time, thereby enabling the estimation of the treatment effect of each treatment, and minimizing the cumulative regret of the planner whose goal is to identify the optimal treatment. △ Less

Submitted 28 July, 2021; v1 submitted 21 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Comments: In Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2021), 17 pages of main text, 53 pages total, 3 figures

Strategic Instrumental Variable Regression: Recovering Causal Relationships From Strategic Responses

Authors: Keegan Harris, Daniel Ngo, Logan Stapleton, Hoda Heidari, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: In settings where Machine Learning (ML) algorithms automate or inform consequential decisions about people, individual decision subjects are often incentivized to strategically modify their observable attributes to receive more favorable predictions. As a result, the distribution the assessment rule is trained on may differ from the one it operates on in deployment. While such distribution shifts,… ▽ More In settings where Machine Learning (ML) algorithms automate or inform consequential decisions about people, individual decision subjects are often incentivized to strategically modify their observable attributes to receive more favorable predictions. As a result, the distribution the assessment rule is trained on may differ from the one it operates on in deployment. While such distribution shifts, in general, can hinder accurate predictions, our work identifies a unique opportunity associated with shifts due to strategic responses: We show that we can use strategic responses effectively to recover causal relationships between the observable features and outcomes we wish to predict, even under the presence of unobserved confounding variables. Specifically, our work establishes a novel connection between strategic responses to ML models and instrumental variable (IV) regression by observing that the sequence of deployed models can be viewed as an instrument that affects agents' observable features but does not directly influence their outcomes. We show that our causal recovery method can be utilized to improve decision-making across several important criteria: individual fairness, agent outcomes, and predictive risk. In particular, we show that if decision subjects differ in their ability to modify non-causal attributes, any decision rule deviating from the causal coefficients can lead to (potentially unbounded) individual-level unfairness. △ Less

Submitted 8 June, 2022; v1 submitted 12 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Comments: In the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2022)

Soliciting Stakeholders' Fairness Notions in Child Maltreatment Predictive Systems

Authors: Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Ruiqi Wang, Paige Bullock, Alexandra Chouldechova, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu

Abstract: Recent work in fair machine learning has proposed dozens of technical definitions of algorithmic fairness and methods for enforcing these definitions. However, we still lack an understanding of how to develop machine learning systems with fairness criteria that reflect relevant stakeholders' nuanced viewpoints in real-world contexts. To address this gap, we propose a framework for eliciting stakeh… ▽ More Recent work in fair machine learning has proposed dozens of technical definitions of algorithmic fairness and methods for enforcing these definitions. However, we still lack an understanding of how to develop machine learning systems with fairness criteria that reflect relevant stakeholders' nuanced viewpoints in real-world contexts. To address this gap, we propose a framework for eliciting stakeholders' subjective fairness notions. Combining a user interface that allows stakeholders to examine the data and the algorithm's predictions with an interview protocol to probe stakeholders' thoughts while they are interacting with the interface, we can identify stakeholders' fairness beliefs and principles. We conduct a user study to evaluate our framework in the setting of a child maltreatment predictive system. Our evaluations show that the framework allows stakeholders to comprehensively convey their fairness viewpoints. We also discuss how our results can inform the design of predictive systems. △ Less

Submitted 1 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitation

Authors: Christopher Jung, Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Logan Stapleton, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: We consider settings in which the right notion of fairness is not captured by simple mathematical definitions (such as equality of error rates across groups), but might be more complex and nuanced and thus require elicitation from individual or collective stakeholders. We introduce a framework in which pairs of individuals can be identified as requiring (approximately) equal treatment under a lear… ▽ More We consider settings in which the right notion of fairness is not captured by simple mathematical definitions (such as equality of error rates across groups), but might be more complex and nuanced and thus require elicitation from individual or collective stakeholders. We introduce a framework in which pairs of individuals can be identified as requiring (approximately) equal treatment under a learned model, or requiring ordered treatment such as "applicant Alice should be at least as likely to receive a loan as applicant Bob". We provide a provably convergent and oracle efficient algorithm for learning the most accurate model subject to the elicited fairness constraints, and prove generalization bounds for both accuracy and fairness. This algorithm can also combine the elicited constraints with traditional statistical fairness notions, thus "correcting" or modifying the latter by the former. We report preliminary findings of a behavioral study of our framework using human-subject fairness constraints elicited on the COMPAS criminal recidivism dataset. △ Less

Submitted 14 October, 2020; v1 submitted 25 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.