Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not exhibit enough writing style diversity, with many adhering primarily to standardized conventions.Such benchmarks do not fully capture the rich variety of communication patterns exhibited by humans.Thus, it is possible that LLMs, which are optimized on these benchmarks, may demonstrate brittle performance when faced with "non-standard" input.In this work, we test this hypothesis by rewriting evaluation prompts using persona-based LLM prompting, a lowcost method to emulate diverse writing styles.Our results show that, even with identical semantic content, variations in writing style and prompt formatting significantly impact the estimated performance of the LLM under evaluation.Notably, we identify distinct writing styles that consistently trigger either low or high performance across a range of models and tasks, irrespective of model family, size, and recency.Our work offers a scalable approach to augment existing benchmarks, improving the external validity of the assessments they provide for measuring LLM performance across linguistic variations.

We study the design of adaptive, sequential experiments for unbiased average treatment effect (ATE) estimation in the design-based potential outcomes setting. Our goal is to develop adaptive designs offering sublinear Neyman regret, meaning their efficiency must approach that of the hindsight-optimal nonadaptive design. Recent work [Dai et al, 2023] introduced ClipOGD, the first method achieving $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ expected Neyman regret under mild conditions. In this work, we propose adaptive designs with substantially stronger Neyman regret guarantees. In particular, we modify ClipOGD to obtain anytime $\widetilde{O}(\log T)$ Neyman regret under natural boundedness assumptions. Further, in the setting where experimental units have pre-treatment covariates, we introduce and study a class of contextual “multigroup” Neyman regret guarantees: Given a set of possibly overlapping groups based on the covariates, the adaptive design outperforms each group’s best non-adaptive designs. In particular, we develop a contextual adaptive design with $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ anytime multigroup Neyman regret. We empirically validate the proposed designs through an array of experiments.

How can we precisely estimate a large language model's (LLM) accuracy on questions belonging to a specific topic within a larger questionanswering dataset?The standard direct estimator, which averages the model's accuracy on the questions in each subgroup, may exhibit high variance for subgroups (topics) with small sample sizes.Synthetic regression modeling, which leverages the model's accuracy on questions about other topics, may yield biased estimates that are too unreliable for large subgroups.We prescribe a simple yet effective solution: an empirical Bayes (EB) estimator that balances direct and regression estimates for each subgroup separately, improving the precision of subgroup-level estimates of model performance.Our experiments on multiple datasets show that this approach consistently provides more precise estimates of the LLM performance compared to the direct and regression approaches, achieving substantial reductions in the mean squared error.Confidence intervals for EB estimates also have nearnominal coverage and are narrower compared to those for the direct estimator.Additional experiments on tabular and vision data validate the benefits of this EB approach.

This paper proposes the use of "multicalibration": to yield interpretable and reliable confidence scores for outputs generated by large language models (LLMs). Multicalibration asks for calibration not just marginally, but simultaneously across various intersecting groupings of the data. We show how to form groupings for prompt/completion pairs that are correlated with the probability of correctness via two techniques: clustering within an embedding space, and "self-annotation" - querying the LLM by asking it various yes-or-no questions about the prompt. We also develop novel variants of multicalibration algorithms that offer performance improvements by reducing their tendency to overfit. Through systematic benchmarking across various question answering datasets and LLMs, we show how our techniques can yield confidence scores that provide substantial improvements in fine-grained measures of both calibration and accuracy compared to existing methods.

Racial disparities in US drug arrest rates have been observed for decades, but their causes and policy implications are still contested. Some have argued that the disparities largely reflect differences in drug use between racial groups, while others have hypothesized that discriminatory enforcement policies and police practices play a significant role. In this work, we analyze racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana violations in the US. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) programs, we investigate whether marijuana usage and purchasing behaviors can explain the racial composition of offenders in police records. We examine potential driving mechanisms behind these disparities and the extent to which county-level socioeconomic factors are associated with corresponding disparities. Our results indicate that the significant racial disparities in reported incidents and arrests cannot be explained by differences in marijuana days-of-use alone. Variations in the location where marijuana is purchased and in the frequency of these purchases partially explain the observed disparities. We observe an increase in racial disparities across most counties over the last decade, with the greatest increases in states that legalized the use of marijuana within this timeframe. Income, high school graduation rate, and rate of employment positively correlate with larger racial disparities, while the rate of incarceration is negatively correlated. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the observed racial disparities in the context of algorithmic fairness.

Algorithmic transparency entails exposing system properties to various stakeholders for purposes that include understanding, improving, and contesting predictions. Until now, most research into algorithmic transparency has predominantly focused on explainability. Explainability attempts to provide reasons for a machine learning model's behavior to stakeholders. However, understanding a model's specific behavior alone might not be enough for stakeholders to gauge whether the model is wrong or lacks sufficient knowledge to solve the task at hand. In this paper, we argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. First, we discuss methods for assessing uncertainty. Then, we characterize how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. Finally, we outline methods for displaying uncertainty to stakeholders and recommend how to collect information required for incorporating uncertainty into existing ML pipelines. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness. We aim to encourage researchers and practitioners to measure, communicate, and use uncertainty as a form of transparency.

Re-offense risk is considered in decision-making at many stages of the criminal justice system, from pre-trial, to sentencing, to parole. To aid decision-makers in their assessments, institutions increasingly rely on algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs). These tools assess the likelihood that an individual will be arrested for a new criminal offense within some time window following their release. However, since not all crimes result in arrest, RAIs do not directly assess the risk of re-offense. Furthermore, disparities in the likelihood of arrest can potentially lead to biases in the resulting risk scores. Several recent validations of RAIs have therefore focused on arrests for violent offenses, which are viewed as being more accurate and less biased reflections of offending behavior. In this paper, we investigate biases in violent arrest data by analysing racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest for White and Black violent offenders. We focus our study on 2007--2016 incident-level data of violent offenses from 16 US states as recorded in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Our analysis shows that the magnitude and direction of the racial disparities depend on various characteristics of the crimes. In addition, our investigation reveals large variations in arrest rates across geographical locations and offense types. We discuss the implications of the observed disconnect between re-arrest and re-offense in the context of RAIs and the challenges around the use of data from NIBRS to correct for the sampling bias.

As algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) are increasingly adopted to assist decision makers, their predictive performance and potential to promote inequity have come under scrutiny. However, while most studies examine these tools in isolation, researchers have come to recognize that assessing their impact requires understanding the behavior of their human interactants. In this paper, building off of several recent crowdsourcing works focused on criminal justice, we conduct a vignette study in which laypersons are tasked with predicting future re-arrests. Our key findings are as follows: (1) Participants often predict that an offender will be rearrested even when they deem the likelihood of re-arrest to be well below 50%; (2) Participants do not anchor on the RAI's predictions; (3) The time spent on the survey varies widely across participants and most cases are assessed in less than 10 seconds; (4) Judicial decisions, unlike participants' predictions, depend in part on factors that are orthogonal to the likelihood of re-arrest. These results highlight the influence of several crucial but often overlooked design decisions and concerns around generalizability when constructing crowdsourcing studies to analyze the impacts of RAI

Risk assessment tools are widely used around the country to inform decision making within the criminal justice system. Recently, considerable attention has been devoted to the question of whether such tools may suffer from racial bias. In this type of assessment, a fundamental issue is that the training and evaluation of the model is based on a variable (arrest) that may represent a noisy version of an unobserved outcome of more central interest (offense). We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model as a predictor of reoffense. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome.

The increased use of algorithmic predictions in sensitive domains has been accompanied by both enthusiasm and concern. To understand the opportunities and risks of these technologies, it is key to study how experts alter their decisions when using such tools. In this paper, we study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We focus on the question: Are humans capable of identifying cases in which the machine is wrong, and of overriding those recommendations? We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. Then, we show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk, even when overriding the recommendation requires supervisory approval. These results highlight the risks of full automation and the importance of designing decision pipelines that provide humans with autonomy.