Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side

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.

Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side

An algorithm that outputs predictions about the state of the world will almost always be designed with the implicit or explicit goal of outputting accurate predictions (i.e., predictions that are likely to be true). In addition, the rise of increasingly powerful predictive algorithms brought about by the recent revolution in artificial intelligence has led to an emphasis on building predictive algorithms that are fair, in the sense that their predictions do not systematically evince bias or bring about harm to certain individuals or groups. This state of affairs presents two conceptual challenges. First, the goals of accuracy and fairness can sometimes be in tension, and there are no obvious normative guidelines for managing the trade-offs between these two desiderata when they arise. Second, there are many distinct ways of measuring both the accuracy and fairness of a predictive algorithm; here too, there are no obvious guidelines on how to aggregate our preferences for predictive algorithms that satisfy disparate measures of fairness and accuracy to various extents. The goal of this paper is to address these challenges by arguing that there are good reasons for using a linear combination of accuracy and fairness metrics to measure the all-things-considered value of a predictive algorithm for agents who care about both accuracy and fairness. My argument depends crucially on a classic result in the preference aggregation literature due to Harsanyi. After making this formal argument, I apply my result to an analysis of accuracy-fairness trade-offs using the COMPAS dataset compiled by Angwin et al.

We introduce a novel framework for human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We demonstrate the utility of our framework in a case study of emergency room triage decisions, where we find that although algorithmic risk scores are highly competitive with physicians, there is strong evidence that physician judgments provide signal which could not be replicated by any predictive algorithm. This insight yields a range of natural decision rules which leverage the complementary strengths of human experts and predictive algorithms.

Educational Data Mining (EDM) is a promising field, where data mining is widely used for predicting students performance. One of the most prevalent and recent challenge that higher education faces today is making students skillfully employable. Institutions possess large volume of data; still they are unable to reveal knowledge and guide their students. Data in education is generally very large, multidimensional and unbalanced in nature. Process of extracting knowledge from such data has its own set of problems and is a very complicated task. In this paper, Engineering and MCA (Masters in Computer Applications) students data is collected from various universities and institutes pan India. The dataset is large, unbalanced and multidimensional in nature. A cluster based model is presented in this paper, which, when applied at preprocessing stage helps in parsimonious selection of variables and improves the performance of predictive algorithms. Hence, facilitate in better prediction of Students Employability.

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given some choices made by human decision makers. There often exists unobserved confounders that affected the decision maker's choice and the outcome. We propose a unified methodology for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data under such unobserved confounding. Our approach imposes general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional on observed covariates and identified nuisance parameters, formalizing popular empirical strategies for imputing missing data such as proxy outcomes and instrumental variables. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands, such as the conditional likelihood of the outcome, a predictive algorithm's mean square error, true/false positive rate, and many others, under these assumptions. In an administrative dataset from a large Australian financial institution, we illustrate how varying assumptions on unobserved confounding leads to meaningful changes in default risk predictions and evaluations of credit scores across sensitive groups.

Justice systems around the world are using artificial intelligence (AI) to assess people with criminal convictions. These AI technologies rely on machine learning algorithms and their key purpose is to predict the risk of reoffending. They influence decisions made by the courts and prisons and by parole and probation officers. This kind of tech has been an intrinsic part of the UK justice system since 2001. That was the year a risk assessment tool, known as Oasys (Offender Assessment System), was introduced and began taking over certain tasks from probation officers. Yet in over two decades, scientists outside the government have not been permitted access to the data behind Oasys to independently analyse its workings and assess its accuracy – for example, whether the decisions it influences lead to fewer offences or reconvictions. Lack of transparency affects AI systems generally. Their complex decision-making processes can evolve into a black box – too obscure to unravel without advanced technical knowledge. Proponents believe that AI algorithms are more objective scientific tools because they are standardised and this helps to reduce human bias in assessments and decision making. This, supporters claim, makes them useful for public protection. But critics say that a lack of access to the data, as well as other crucial information required for independent evaluation, raises serious questions of accountability and transparency.

The High Short Interest Stocks Package is designed for investors and analysts who need predictions for stocks with high short interest that are often very volatile and well known for making explosive upside moves (known as a short squeeze). Such stocks have prices that can potentially move up very quickly as traders with open short positions move to cover. Package Name: High Short Interest Stocks Recommended Positions: Long Forecast Length: 7 Days (3/27/23 – 4/3/23) I Know First Average: 14.12% The algorithm correctly predicted 9 out of 10 the suggested trades for this 7 Days forecast. The top-performing prediction in this forecast was AI, which registered a return of 34.03%.