A panel satisfies descriptive representation when its composition reflects the population. We examine the role of descriptive representation in collective decision making through an optimization lens, asking whether representative panels make decisions that maximize social welfare for the underlying population. Our main results suggest that, in general, representation with respect to intersections of two or more features guarantees higher social welfare than that achieved by the status quo of proportionally representing individual features. Moreover, an analysis of real data suggests that representation with respect to pairs of features is feasible in practice. These results have significant implications for the design of citizens' assemblies, which are gaining prominence in AI governance.

Sequential deep learning models excel in domains with temporal or sequential dependencies, but their complexity necessitates post-hoc feature attribution methods for understanding their predictions. While existing techniques quantify feature importance, they inherently assume fixed feature ordering -- conflating the effects of (1) feature values and (2) their positions within input sequences. To address this gap, we introduce OrdShap, a novel attribution method that disentangles these effects by quantifying how a model's predictions change in response to permuting feature position. We establish a game-theoretic connection between OrdShap and Sanchez-Bergantiños values, providing a theoretically grounded approach to position-sensitive attribution. Empirical results from health, natural language, and synthetic datasets highlight OrdShap's effectiveness in capturing feature value and feature position attributions, and provide deeper insight into model behavior.

Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

Learning high-quality feature embeddings efficiently and effectively is critical for the performance of web-scale machine learning systems.

Results from experiments on three large real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that OptFeature performs well in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Additional studies support the feasibility of our method.

We call this distinction thediscrimination risk. We prove that a higher discrimination risk can amplify the unfairness of a machine learning model applied totheimputed data.