We present a new undergraduate ML course at our institution, a small liberal arts college serving students minoritized in STEM, designed to empower students to critically connect the mathematical foundations of ML with its sociotechnical implications. We propose a ''framework-focused'' approach, teaching students the language and formalism of probabilistic modeling while leveraging probabilistic programming to lower mathematical barriers. We introduce methodological concepts through a whimsical, yet realistic theme, the ''Intergalactic Hypothetical Hospital,'' to make the content both relevant and accessible. Finally, we pair each technical innovation with counter-narratives that challenge its value using real, open-ended case-studies to cultivate dialectical thinking. By encouraging creativity in modeling and highlighting unresolved ethical challenges, we help students recognize the value and need of their unique perspectives, empowering them to participate confidently in AI discourse as technologists and critical citizens.

When explaining machine learning models, it is important for explanations to have certain properties like faithfulness, robustness, smoothness, low complexity, etc. However, many properties are in tension with each other, making it challenging to achieve them simultaneously. For example, reducing the complexity of an explanation can make it less expressive, compromising its faithfulness. The ideal balance of trade-offs between properties tends to vary across different tasks and users. Motivated by these varying needs, we aim to find explanations that make optimal trade-offs while allowing for transparent control over the balance between different properties. Unlike existing methods that encourage desirable properties implicitly through their design, our approach optimizes explanations explicitly for a linear mixture of multiple properties. By adjusting the mixture weights, users can control the balance between those properties and create explanations with precisely what is needed for their particular task.

Doctoral programs often have high rates of depression, anxiety, isolation, and imposter phenomenon. Consequently, graduating students may feel inadequately prepared for research-focused careers, contributing to an attrition of talent. Prior work identifies an important contributing factor to maladjustment: even with prior exposure to research, entering Ph.D. students often have problematically idealized views of science. These preconceptions can become obstacles for students in their own professional growth. Unfortunately, existing curricular and extracurricular programming in many doctoral programs fail to include mechanisms to systematically address students' misconceptions of their profession. In this work, we describe a new initiative at our institution that aims to address Ph.D. mental health via a mandatory seminar for entering doctoral students. The seminar is designed to build professional resilience in students by (1) increasing self-regulatory competence, and (2) teaching students to proactively examine academic cultural values and to participate in shaping them. Our evaluation indicates that students improved in both areas after completing the seminar.

Many researchers and policymakers have expressed excitement about algorithmic explanations enabling more fair and responsible decision-making. However, recent experimental studies have found that explanations do not always improve human use of algorithmic advice. In this study, we shed light on how people interpret and respond to counterfactual explanations (CFEs)---explanations that show how a model's output would change with marginal changes to its input(s)---in the context of pretrial risk assessment instruments (PRAIs). We ran think-aloud trials with eight sitting U.S. state court judges, providing them with recommendations from a PRAI that includes CFEs. We found that the CFEs did not alter the judges' decisions. At first, judges misinterpreted the counterfactuals as real---rather than hypothetical---changes to defendants. Once judges understood what the counterfactuals meant, they ignored them, stating their role is only to make decisions regarding the actual defendant in question. The judges also expressed a mix of reasons for ignoring or following the advice of the PRAI without CFEs. These results add to the literature detailing the unexpected ways in which people respond to algorithms and explanations. They also highlight new challenges associated with improving human-algorithm collaborations through explanations.

Bayesian Neural Networks with Latent Variables (BNN+LVs) capture predictive uncertainty by explicitly modeling model uncertainty (via priors on network weights) and environmental stochasticity (via a latent input noise variable). In this work, we first show that BNN+LV suffers from a serious form of non-identifiability: explanatory power can be transferred between the model parameters and latent variables while fitting the data equally well. We demonstrate that as a result, in the limit of infinite data, the posterior mode over the network weights and latent variables is asymptotically biased away from the ground-truth. Due to this asymptotic bias, traditional inference methods may in practice yield parameters that generalize poorly and misestimate uncertainty. Next, we develop a novel inference procedure that explicitly mitigates the effects of likelihood non-identifiability during training and yields high-quality predictions as well as uncertainty estimates. We demonstrate that our inference method improves upon benchmark methods across a range of synthetic and real data-sets.