Twelve men have been charged with the manslaughter of football fan Simon Dobbin. Dobbin was assaulted outside the Railway Tavern in Southend-on-Sea in Essex in March 2015 following a match between Cambridge United and Southend United. The dad from Mildenhall, Suffolk, died in October 2020 after suffering a brain injury as a result of the attack. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had now decided to prosecute 12 men in connection with his death and all the defendants will appear at Colchester Magistrates' Court on 31 March. Rebecca Mundy, deputy chief crown prosecutor, said the CPS had worked closely with Essex Police to examine and review material obtained during previous investigations.

Court system on'brink of collapse', former senior judge warns The court system is on the brink of collapse as the backlogs for trials reach unprecedented levels, the head of a major review has said. Sir Brian Leveson, a senior retired judge, warned ministers, the police and others that there could not be a pick and mix response to solving the crisis. Last year, in the first stage of the review, Sir Brian called for the right to a jury trial to be scaled back and many intermediate crimes to be dealt with by a judge alone. His second and final report has recommended 130 efficiency changes, from technical measures to allowing prison vans to use bus lanes to hit court appearance deadlines. Sir Brian's two reports were commissioned by ministers as part of an attempt to reverse the backlogs that had reached record levels before Labour came into power, but have continued to worsen since then.

Machine learning models in high-stakes applications, such as recidivism prediction and automated personnel selection, often exhibit systematic performance disparities across sensitive subpopulations, raising critical concerns regarding algorithmic bias. Fairness auditing addresses these risks through two primary functions: certification, which verifies adherence to fairness constraints; and flagging, which isolates specific demographic groups experiencing disparate treatment. However, existing auditing techniques are frequently limited by restrictive distributional assumptions or prohibitive computational overhead. We propose a novel empirical likelihood-based (EL) framework that constructs robust statistical measures for model performance disparities. Unlike traditional methods, our approach is non-parametric; the proposed disparity statistics follow asymptotically chi-square or mixed chi-square distributions, ensuring valid inference without assuming underlying data distributions. This framework uses a constrained optimization profile that admits stable numerical solutions, facilitating both large-scale certification and efficient subpopulation discovery. Empirically, the EL methods outperform bootstrap-based approaches, yielding coverage rates closer to nominal levels while reducing computational latency by several orders of magnitude. We demonstrate the practical utility of this framework on the COMPAS dataset, where it successfully flags intersectional biases, specifically identifying a significantly higher positive prediction rate for African-American males under 25 and a systemic under-prediction for Caucasian females relative to the population mean.

Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended. These exposes highlight the need to identify when algorithms predict unintended quantities - ideally before deploying them into consequential settings. We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity: the requirement that an algorithm predict intended outcomes better than impermissible ones. Drawing on falsification practices from causal inference, econometrics, and psychometrics, our framework compares calibrated prediction losses across outcomes to assess whether the algorithm exhibits discriminant validity with respect to a specified impermissible proxy. In settings where the target outcome is difficult to observe, multiple permissible proxy outcomes may be available; our framework accommodates both this setting and the case with a single permissible proxy. Throughout we use nonparametric hypothesis testing methods that make minimal assumptions on the data-generating process. We illustrate the method in an admissions setting, where the framework establishes discriminant validity with respect to gender but fails to establish discriminant validity with respect to race. This demonstrates how falsification can serve as an early validity check, prior to fairness or robustness analyses. We also provide analysis in a criminal justice setting, where we highlight the limitations of our framework and emphasize the need for complementary approaches to assess other aspects of construct validity and external validity.

The Equalized Odds (for short, EO) is one of the most popular measures of discrimination used in the supervised learning setting. It ascertains fairness through the balance of the misclassification rates (false positive and negative) across the protected groups -- e.g., in the context of law enforcement, an African-American defendant who would not commit a future crime will have an equal opportunity of being released, compared to a non-recidivating Caucasian defendant. Despite this noble goal, it has been acknowledged in the literature that statistical tests based on the EO are oblivious to the underlying causal mechanisms that generated the disparity in the first place (Hardt et al. 2016). This leads to a critical disconnect between statistical measures readable from the data and the meaning of discrimination in the legal system, where compelling evidence that the observed disparity is tied to a specific causal process deemed unfair by society is required to characterize discrimination. The goal of this paper is to develop a principled approach to connect the statistical disparities characterized by the EO and the underlying, elusive, and frequently unobserved, causal mechanisms that generated such inequality. We start by introducing a new family of counterfactual measures that allows one to explain the misclassification disparities in terms of the underlying mechanisms in an arbitrary, non-parametric structural causal model. This will, in turn, allow legal and data analysts to interpret currently deployed classifiers through causal lens, linking the statistical disparities found in the data to the corresponding causal processes. Leveraging the new family of counterfactual measures, we develop a learning procedure to construct a classifier that is statistically efficient, interpretable, and compatible with the basic human intuition of fairness. We demonstrate our results through experiments in both real (COMPAS) and synthetic datasets.

Are there any conditions under which a generative model's outputs are guaranteed not to infringe the copyrights of its training data? This is the question of "provable copyright protection" first posed by Vyas, Kakade, and Barak (ICML 2023). They define near access-freeness (NAF) and propose it as sufficient for protection. This paper revisits the question and establishes new foundations for provable copyright protection -- foundations that are firmer both technically and legally. First, we show that NAF alone does not prevent infringement. In fact, NAF models can enable verbatim copying, a blatant failure of copy protection that we dub being tainted. Then, we introduce our blameless copy protection framework for defining meaningful guarantees, and instantiate it with clean-room copy protection. Clean-room copy protection allows a user to control their risk of copying by behaving in a way that is unlikely to copy in a counterfactual clean-room setting. Finally, we formalize a common intuition about differential privacy and copyright by proving that DP implies clean-room copy protection when the dataset is golden, a copyright deduplication requirement.

The Equalized Odds (for short, EO) is one of the most popular measures of discrimination used in the supervised learning setting. It ascertains fairness through the balance of the misclassification rates (false positive and negative) across the protected groups -- e.g., in the context of law enforcement, an African-American defendant who would not commit a future crime will have an equal opportunity of being released, compared to a non-recidivating Caucasian defendant. Despite this noble goal, it has been acknowledged in the literature that statistical tests based on the EO are oblivious to the underlying causal mechanisms that generated the disparity in the first place (Hardt et al. 2016). This leads to a critical disconnect between statistical measures readable from the data and the meaning of discrimination in the legal system, where compelling evidence that the observed disparity is tied to a specific causal process deemed unfair by society is required to characterize discrimination. The goal of this paper is to develop a principled approach to connect the statistical disparities characterized by the EO and the underlying, elusive, and frequently unobserved, causal mechanisms that generated such inequality. We start by introducing a new family of counterfactual measures that allows one to explain the misclassification disparities in terms of the underlying mechanisms in an arbitrary, non-parametric structural causal model. This will, in turn, allow legal and data analysts to interpret currently deployed classifiers through causal lens, linking the statistical disparities found in the data to the corresponding causal processes. Leveraging the new family of counterfactual measures, we develop a learning procedure to construct a classifier that is statistically efficient, interpretable, and compatible with the basic human intuition of fairness. We demonstrate our results through experiments in both real (COMPAS) and synthetic datasets.

A federal prosecutor alleged that one defendant boasted that his father "had engaged in similar business for the Chinese Communist Party." US authorities allege four people based in Florida, Alabama, and California conspired to illegally ship supercomputers and hundreds of Nvidia GPUs to China as recently as July. The charges, which were unsealed in federal court on Wednesday, are part of a wider government effort to crack down on the smuggling of advanced AI chips to China. Over the past few years, the US has introduced a series of export control rules designed to prevent Chinese organizations from acquiring computer chips that have become popular for developing AI chatbots . The restrictions aim to slow China in what US officials have described as a race to develop powerful AI systems, including surveillance tools and autonomous weapons .

The Equalized Odds (for short, EO) is one of the most popular measures of discrimination used in the supervised learning setting.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/