We study the problem of learning with selectively labeled data, which arises when outcomes are only partially labeled due to historical decision-making. The labeled data distribution may substantially differ from the full population, especially when the historical decisions and the target outcome can be simultaneously affected by some unobserved factors. Consequently, learning with only the labeled data may lead to severely biased results when deployed to the full population. Our paper tackles this challenge by exploiting the fact that in many applications the historical decisions were made by a set of heterogeneous decision-makers. In particular, we analyze this setup in a principled instrumental variable (IV) framework. We establish conditions for the full-population risk of any given prediction rule to be point-identified from the observed data and provide sharp risk bounds when the point identification fails. We further propose a weighted learning approach that learns prediction rules robust to the label selection bias in both identification settings. Finally, we apply our proposed approach to a semi-synthetic financial dataset and demonstrate its superior performance in the presence of selection bias.

Over 100 music artists, including Tom Morello and Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine, have banded together to announce they are boycotting concert venues that use facial recognition technology, as originally reported by Rolling Stone. The artists cite a number of concerns, including privacy infringement and increased discrimination. The boycott was organized by a digital rights advocacy group called Fight for the Future and its ultimate goal is the elimination of face-scanning technology at all live events. Beyond the two founding members of Rage Against the Machine, other participating artists include Speedy Ortiz, Anti-Flag, Boots Riley and Deerhoof, among more than 80 others. The full list is available right here.

Robotaxis keep tangling with firefighters on the streets of San Francisco, and the fire chief is fed up. "They're not ready for prime time," Chief Jeanine Nicholson said. Nicholson is talking about the driverless taxis from Waymo and Cruise that are picking up passengers and dropping them off in designated sections of the city. Now those companies want to rapidly expand service throughout the entire city, in unlimited numbers, in any kind of weather, day or night. And state regulators appear ready to approve their request.

The first video shows a man who thinks he's talking to a woman (bottom right corner) but is actually talking to a man (top left corner) and the second videos is deepfake demo. New generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have captivated the world's imagination with promise and potential. AI's ability to analyze vast amounts of data and make autonomous decisions is a source of both awe and anxiety. People worry about bias in decision-making, the invasion of privacy, job displacement, and even the existential fear of machines becoming uncontrollable. How can we make sure AI benefits society? The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has responded by seeking input on how to ensure that AI companies are "accountable."

Analysis of innovation has been fundamentally limited by conventional approaches to broad, structural variables. This paper pushes the boundaries, taking an LLM approach to patent analysis with the groundbreaking ChatGPT technology. OpenAI's state-of-the-art textual embedding accesses complex information about the quality and impact of each invention to power deep learning predictive models. The nuanced embedding drives a 24% incremental improvement in R-squared predicting patent value and clearly isolates the worst and best applications. These models enable a revision of the contemporary Kogan, Papanikolaou, Seru, and Stoffman (2017) valuation of patents by a median deviation of 1.5 times, accounting for potential institutional predictions. Furthermore, the market fails to incorporate timely information about applications; a long-short portfolio based on predicted acceptance rates achieves significant abnormal returns of 3.3% annually. The models provide an opportunity to revolutionize startup and small-firm corporate policy vis-a-vis patenting.

Predictive models that satisfy group fairness criteria in aggregate for members of a protected class, but do not guarantee subgroup fairness, could produce biased predictions for individuals at the intersection of two or more protected classes. To address this risk, we propose Conditional Bias Scan (CBS), a flexible auditing framework for detecting intersectional biases in classification models. CBS identifies the subgroup for which there is the most significant bias against the protected class, as compared to the equivalent subgroup in the non-protected class, and can incorporate multiple commonly used fairness definitions for both probabilistic and binarized predictions. We show that this methodology can detect previously unidentified intersectional and contextual biases in the COMPAS pre-trial risk assessment tool and has higher bias detection power compared to similar methods that audit for subgroup fairness.

The task of empowering large language models (LLMs) to accurately express their confidence, referred to as confidence elicitation, is essential in ensuring reliable and trustworthy decision-making processes. Previous methods, which primarily rely on model logits, have become less suitable for LLMs and even infeasible with the rise of closed-source LLMs (e.g., commercialized LLM APIs). This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of \emph{non-logit-based} approaches to estimate the uncertainty of LLMs. Hence, in this study, we investigate approaches for confidence elicitation that do not require model fine-tuning or access to proprietary information. We introduce three categories of methods: verbalize-based, consistency-based, and their hybrid methods for benchmarking, and evaluate their performance across five types of datasets and four widely-used LLMs. Our analysis of these methods uncovers several key insights: 1) LLMs often exhibit a high degree of overconfidence when verbalizing their confidence; 2) Prompting strategies such as CoT, Top-K and Multi-step confidences improve calibration of verbalized confidence; 3) Consistency-based methods outperform the verbalized confidences in most cases, with particularly notable improvements on the arithmetic reasoning task; 4) Hybrid methods consistently deliver the best performance over their baselines, thereby emerging as a promising state-of-the-art approach; 5) Despite these advancements, all investigated methods continue to struggle with challenging tasks, such as those requiring professional knowledge, leaving significant scope for improvement of confidence elicitation.

As generative language models are deployed in ever-wider contexts, concerns about their political values have come to the forefront with critique from all parts of the political spectrum that the models are biased and lack neutrality. However, the question of what neutrality is and whether it is desirable remains underexplored. In this paper, I examine neutrality through an audit of Delphi [arXiv:2110.07574], a large language model designed for crowdsourced ethics. I analyse how Delphi responds to politically controversial questions compared to different US political subgroups. I find that Delphi is poorly calibrated with respect to confidence and exhibits a significant political skew. Based on these results, I examine the question of neutrality from a data-feminist lens, in terms of how notions of neutrality shift power and further marginalise unheard voices. These findings can hopefully contribute to a more reflexive debate about the normative questions of alignment and what role we want generative models to play in society.

The insurance industry is heavily reliant on predictions of risks based on characteristics of potential customers. Although the use of said models is common, researchers have long pointed out that such practices perpetuate discrimination based on sensitive features such as gender or race. Given that such discrimination can often be attributed to historical data biases, an elimination or at least mitigation is desirable. With the shift from more traditional models to machine-learning based predictions, calls for greater mitigation have grown anew, as simply excluding sensitive variables in the pricing process can be shown to be ineffective. In this article, we first investigate why predictions are a necessity within the industry and why correcting biases is not as straightforward as simply identifying a sensitive variable. We then propose to ease the biases through the use of Wasserstein barycenters instead of simple scaling. To demonstrate the effects and effectiveness of the approach we employ it on real data and discuss its implications.

Interpreting the meaning of legal open-textured terms is a key task of legal professionals. An important source for this interpretation is how the term was applied in previous court cases. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in generating factually accurate, clear and relevant explanations of terms in legislation. We compare the performance of a baseline setup, where GPT-4 is directly asked to explain a legal term, to an augmented approach, where a legal information retrieval module is used to provide relevant context to the model, in the form of sentences from case law. We found that the direct application of GPT-4 yields explanations that appear to be of very high quality on their surface. However, detailed analysis uncovered limitations in terms of the factual accuracy of the explanations. Further, we found that the augmentation leads to improved quality, and appears to eliminate the issue of hallucination, where models invent incorrect statements. These findings open the door to the building of systems that can autonomously retrieve relevant sentences from case law and condense them into a useful explanation for legal scholars, educators or practicing lawyers alike.