Ken Holstein

Amanda Coston, Anna Kawakami, Haiyi Zhu et al. · cmu

Recent research increasingly brings to question the appropriateness of using predictive tools in complex, real-world tasks. While a growing body of work has explored ways to improve value alignment in these tools, comparatively less work has centered concerns around the fundamental justifiability of using these tools. This work seeks to center validity considerations in deliberations around whether and how to build data-driven algorithms in high-stakes domains. Toward this end, we translate key concepts from validity theory to predictive algorithms. We apply the lens of validity to re-examine common challenges in problem formulation and data issues that jeopardize the justifiability of using predictive algorithms and connect these challenges to the social science discourse around validity. Our interdisciplinary exposition clarifies how these concepts apply to algorithmic decision making contexts. We demonstrate how these validity considerations could distill into a series of high-level questions intended to promote and document reflections on the legitimacy of the predictive task and the suitability of the data.

Wesley Hanwen Deng, Nur Yildirim, Monica Chang et al. · cmu

An emerging body of research indicates that ineffective cross-functional collaboration -- the interdisciplinary work done by industry practitioners across roles -- represents a major barrier to addressing issues of fairness in AI design and development. In this research, we sought to better understand practitioners' current practices and tactics to enact cross-functional collaboration for AI fairness, in order to identify opportunities to support more effective collaboration. We conducted a series of interviews and design workshops with 23 industry practitioners spanning various roles from 17 companies. We found that practitioners engaged in bridging work to overcome frictions in understanding, contextualization, and evaluation around AI fairness across roles. In addition, in organizational contexts with a lack of resources and incentives for fairness work, practitioners often piggybacked on existing requirements (e.g., for privacy assessments) and AI development norms (e.g., the use of quantitative evaluation metrics), although they worry that these tactics may be fundamentally compromised. Finally, we draw attention to the invisible labor that practitioners take on as part of this bridging and piggybacking work to enact interdisciplinary collaboration for fairness. We close by discussing opportunities for both FAccT researchers and AI practitioners to better support cross-functional collaboration for fairness in the design and development of AI systems.

Eunkyu Park, Wesley Hanwen Deng, Cheyon Jin et al.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) continue to struggle to make morally salient judgments in multimodal and socially ambiguous contexts. Prior works typically rely on binary or pairwise supervision, which often fail to capture the continuous and pluralistic nature of human moral reasoning. We present MM-SCALE (Multimodal Moral Scale), a large-scale dataset for aligning VLMs with human moral preferences through 5-point scalar ratings and explicit modality grounding. Each image-scenario pair is annotated with moral acceptability scores and grounded reasoning labels by humans using an interface we tailored for data collection, enabling listwise preference optimization over ranked scenario sets. By moving from discrete to scalar supervision, our framework provides richer alignment signals and finer calibration of multimodal moral reasoning. Experiments show that VLMs fine-tuned on MM-SCALE achieve higher ranking fidelity and more stable safety calibration than those trained with binary signals.

Wesley Hanwen Deng, Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Akshita Jha et al.

Recent developments in AI governance and safety research have called for red-teaming methods that can effectively surface potential risks posed by AI models. Many of these calls have emphasized how the identities and backgrounds of red-teamers can shape their red-teaming strategies, and thus the kinds of risks they are likely to uncover. While automated red-teaming approaches promise to complement human red-teaming by enabling larger-scale exploration of model behavior, current approaches do not consider the role of identity. As an initial step towards incorporating people's background and identities in automated red-teaming, we develop and evaluate a novel method, PersonaTeaming, that introduces personas in the adversarial prompt generation process to explore a wider spectrum of adversarial strategies. In particular, we first introduce a methodology for mutating prompts based on either "red-teaming expert" personas or "regular AI user" personas. We then develop a dynamic persona-generating algorithm that automatically generates various persona types adaptive to different seed prompts. In addition, we develop a set of new metrics to explicitly measure the "mutation distance" to complement existing diversity measurements of adversarial prompts. Our experiments show promising improvements (up to 144.1%) in the attack success rates of adversarial prompts through persona mutation, while maintaining prompt diversity, compared to RainbowPlus, a state-of-the-art automated red-teaming method. We discuss the strengths and limitations of different persona types and mutation methods, shedding light on future opportunities to explore complementarities between automated and human red-teaming approaches.