We analyze statistical discrimination using a multi-armed bandit model where myopic firms face candidate workers arriving with heterogeneous observable characteristics. The association between the worker's skill and characteristics is unknown ex ante; thus, firms need to learn it. In such an environment, laissez-faire may result in a highly unfair and inefficient outcome---myopic firms are reluctant to hire minority workers because the lack of data about minority workers prevents accurate estimation of their performance. Consequently, minority groups could be perpetually underestimated---they are never hired, and therefore, data about them is never accumulated. We proved that this problem becomes more serious when the population ratio is imbalanced, as is the case in many extant discrimination problems. We consider two affirmative-action policies for solving this dilemma: One is a subsidy rule that is based on the popular upper confidence bound algorithm, and another is the Rooney Rule, which requires firms to interview at least one minority worker for each hiring opportunity. Our results indicate temporary affirmative actions are effective for statistical discrimination caused by data insufficiency.

The challenge of establishing assurance in autonomy is rapidly attracting increasing interest in the industry, government, and academia. Autonomy is a broad and expansive capability that enables systems to behave without direct control by a human operator. To that end, it is expected to be present in a wide variety of systems and applications. A vast range of industrial sectors, including (but by no means limited to) defense, mobility, health care, manufacturing, and civilian infrastructure, are embracing the opportunities in autonomy yet face the similar barriers toward establishing the necessary level of assurance sooner or later. Numerous government agencies are poised to tackle the challenges in assured autonomy. Given the already immense interest and investment in autonomy, a series of workshops on Assured Autonomy was convened to facilitate dialogs and increase awareness among the stakeholders in the academia, industry, and government. This series of three workshops aimed to help create a unified understanding of the goals for assured autonomy, the research trends and needs, and a strategy that will facilitate sustained progress in autonomy. The first workshop, held in October 2019, focused on current and anticipated challenges and problems in assuring autonomous systems within and across applications and sectors. The second workshop held in February 2020, focused on existing capabilities, current research, and research trends that could address the challenges and problems identified in workshop. The third event was dedicated to a discussion of a draft of the major findings from the previous two workshops and the recommendations.

In Machine Learning (ML) models used for supporting decisions in high-stakes domains such as public policy, explainability is crucial for adoption and effectiveness. While the field of explainable ML has expanded in recent years, much of this work does not take real-world needs into account. A majority of proposed methods use benchmark ML problems with generic explainability goals without clear use-cases or intended end-users. As a result, the effectiveness of this large body of theoretical and methodological work on real-world applications is unclear. This paper focuses on filling this void for the domain of public policy. We develop a taxonomy of explainability use-cases within public policy problems; for each use-case, we define the end-users of explanations and the specific goals explainability has to fulfill; third, we map existing work to these use-cases, identify gaps, and propose research directions to fill those gaps in order to have practical policy impact through ML.

In this article, Juan Murillo, Senior Manager of Data Strategy at BBVA, and Jesús Lozano, Manager of Digital Regulation at BBVA, analyse the potential implications of Artificial Intelligence regulations and share their insights into the considerations that should be taken into account to ensure that regulatory aspects support the proper development of this discipline in the future. Artificial Intelligence is a term coined in the 1950s that is usually understood as referring to a single technology, when in reality it encompasses a broad range of techniques and methodologies whose theoretical foundations were laid over 70 years ago. This field has already gone through a number of stages. During the first stage, symbolic AI applications dominated. Symbolic AI is a top-down approach that aspires to parameterise all the alternatives to a problem in order to find the right solution by following a tree of logical rules.

More than 100 of the world's leading experts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ethics have signed up to be part of a new journal created by a North East professor. University of Sunderland's Pro-Vice-Chancellor John MacIntyre launches'AI and Ethics' this month alongside his co-Editor-in-Chief, Professor Larry Medsker of George Washington University in the US, and Rachel Moriarty, Publishing Editor at Springer. Five years in the making, the journal has attracted around 100 of the world's leading thinkers and practitioners in this field of study to be part of its editorial board and aims to promote informed debate and discussion of the ethical, regulatory and policy implications that arise from the development of AI. Professor MacIntyre said: "Our objective is to be useful to a wide range of audiences – the academic and scientific community, the commercial and product development community, users of AI, those developing governance and regulatory frameworks for AI, and the public. We want to provide an outlet to publish high-quality work and making it available to be used by those audiences."

Facebook launched an independent oversight board and recommitted to privacy reforms this week, but after years of promises made and broken, nobody seems convinced that real change is afoot. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to decide shortly whether to sue Facebook, sources told the New York Times, following a $5 billion fine levied last year. In other investigations, the Department of Justice filed suit against Google this week, accusing the Alphabet company of maintaining multiple monopolies through exclusive agreements, collection of personal data, and artificial intelligence. News also broke this week that Google's AI will play a role in creating a virtual border wall. What you see in each instance is a powerful company insisting it can regulate itself while government regulators appear to reach the opposite conclusion.

On a bright Tuesday afternoon in Paris last fall, Alex Karp was doing tai chi in the Luxembourg Gardens. He wore blue Nike sweatpants, a blue polo shirt, orange socks, charcoal-gray sneakers and white-framed sunglasses with red accents that inevitably drew attention to his most distinctive feature, a tangle of salt-and-pepper hair rising skyward from his head. Under a canopy of chestnut trees, Karp executed a series of elegant tai chi and qigong moves, shifting the pebbles and dirt gently under his feet as he twisted and turned. A group of teenagers watched in amusement. After 10 minutes or so, Karp walked to a nearby bench, where one of his bodyguards had placed a cooler and what looked like an instrument case. The cooler held several bottles of the nonalcoholic German beer that Karp drinks (he would crack one open on the way out of the park). The case contained a wooden sword, which he needed for the next part of his routine. "I brought a real sword the last time I was here, but the police stopped me," he said matter of factly as he began slashing the air with the sword. Those gendarmes evidently didn't know that Karp, far from being a public menace, was the chief executive of an American company whose software has been deployed on behalf of public safety in France. The company, Palantir Technologies, is named after the seeing stones in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings." Its two primary software programs, Gotham and Foundry, gather and process vast quantities of data in order to identify connections, patterns and trends that might elude human analysts. The stated goal of all this "data integration" is to help organizations make better decisions, and many of Palantir's customers consider its technology to be transformative. Karp claims a loftier ambition, however. "We built our company to support the West," he says. To that end, Palantir says it does not do business in countries that it considers adversarial to the U.S. and its allies, namely China and Russia. In the company's early days, Palantir employees, invoking Tolkien, described their mission as "saving the shire." The brainchild of Karp's friend and law-school classmate Peter Thiel, Palantir was founded in 2003. It was seeded in part by In-Q-Tel, the C.I.A.'s venture-capital arm, and the C.I.A. remains a client. Palantir's technology is rumored to have been used to track down Osama bin Laden -- a claim that has never been verified but one that has conferred an enduring mystique on the company. These days, Palantir is used for counterterrorism by a number of Western governments.

In June 2020, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) issued updated guidance on how to evaluate corporate compliance programs, it came with a clear mandate to companies: Compliance programs must use robust technology and data analytics to assess their own actions and those of any third parties they do business with, from the point of engagement onward. At the very least, companies are expected to be able to explain the rationale for using third parties, whether they have relationships with foreign officials, and any potential risks to their reputation. This is a compliance game-changer. Historically, organizations could argue that they simply did not have the information available to identify potential compliance dissonance across their networks: the "needle in a haystack" defense. Organizations are now expected to show that they are leveraging data and applying modern analytics to draw insights and navigate the risks across their entire business network.

Transfer learning is a useful machine learning framework that allows one to build task-specific models (student models) without significantly incurring training costs using a single powerful model (teacher model) pre-trained with a large amount of data. The teacher model may contain private data, or interact with private inputs. We investigate if one can leak or infer such private information without interacting with the teacher model directly. We describe such inference attacks in the context of face recognition, an application of transfer learning that is highly sensitive to personal privacy. Under black-box and realistic settings, we show that existing inference techniques are ineffective, as interacting with individual training instances through the student models does not reveal information about the teacher. We then propose novel strategies to infer from aggregate-level information. Consequently, membership inference attacks on the teacher model are shown to be possible, even when the adversary has access only to the student models. We further demonstrate that sensitive attributes can be inferred, even in the case where the adversary has limited auxiliary information. Finally, defensive strategies are discussed and evaluated. Our extensive study indicates that information leakage is a real privacy threat to the transfer learning framework widely used in real-life situations.

With the widespread adoption of machine learning in the real world, the impact of the discriminatory bias has attracted attention. In recent years, various methods to mitigate the bias have been proposed. However, most of them have not considered intersectional bias, which brings unfair situations where people belonging to specific subgroups of a protected group are treated worse when multiple sensitive attributes are taken into consideration. To mitigate this bias, in this paper, we propose a method called One-vs.-One Mitigation by applying a process of comparison between each pair of subgroups related to sensitive attributes to the fairness-aware machine learning for binary classification. We compare our method and the conventional fairness-aware binary classification methods in comprehensive settings using three approaches (pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing), six metrics (the ratio and difference of demographic parity, equalized odds, and equal opportunity), and two real-world datasets (Adult and COMPAS). As a result, our method mitigates the intersectional bias much better than conventional methods in all the settings. With the result, we open up the potential of fairness-aware binary classification for solving more realistic problems occurring when there are multiple sensitive attributes.