Ilaria Liccardi

Schrasing Tong, Minseok Jung, Ilaria Liccardi et al.

Differences in data distributions between demographic groups, known as the problem of infra-marginality, complicate how people evaluate fairness in machine learning models. We present a user study with 85 participants in a hypothetical medical decision-making scenario to examine two treatments: group-specific model performance and training data availability. Our results show that participants did not equate fairness with simple statistical parity. When group-specific performances were equal or unavailable, participants preferred models that produced equal outcomes; when performances differed, especially in ways consistent with data imbalances, they judged models that preserved those differences as more fair. These findings highlight that fairness judgments are shaped not only by outcomes, but also by beliefs about the causes of disparities. We discuss implications for popular group fairness definitions and system design, arguing that accounting for distributional context is critical to aligning algorithmic fairness metrics with human expectations in real-world applications.

Julius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Ilaria Liccardi et al.

We investigate whether post-hoc model explanations are effective for diagnosing model errors--model debugging. In response to the challenge of explaining a model's prediction, a vast array of explanation methods have been proposed. Despite increasing use, it is unclear if they are effective. To start, we categorize \textit{bugs}, based on their source, into:~\textit{data, model, and test-time} contamination bugs. For several explanation methods, we assess their ability to: detect spurious correlation artifacts (data contamination), diagnose mislabeled training examples (data contamination), differentiate between a (partially) re-initialized model and a trained one (model contamination), and detect out-of-distribution inputs (test-time contamination). We find that the methods tested are able to diagnose a spurious background bug, but not conclusively identify mislabeled training examples. In addition, a class of methods, that modify the back-propagation algorithm are invariant to the higher layer parameters of a deep network; hence, ineffective for diagnosing model contamination. We complement our analysis with a human subject study, and find that subjects fail to identify defective models using attributions, but instead rely, primarily, on model predictions. Taken together, our results provide guidance for practitioners and researchers turning to explanations as tools for model debugging.

Harini Suresh, Natalie Lao, Ilaria Liccardi

ML decision-aid systems are increasingly common on the web, but their successful integration relies on people trusting them appropriately: they should use the system to fill in gaps in their ability, but recognize signals that the system might be incorrect. We measured how people's trust in ML recommendations differs by expertise and with more system information through a task-based study of 175 adults. We used two tasks that are difficult for humans: comparing large crowd sizes and identifying similar-looking animals. Our results provide three key insights: (1) People trust incorrect ML recommendations for tasks that they perform correctly the majority of the time, even if they have high prior knowledge about ML or are given information indicating the system is not confident in its prediction; (2) Four different types of system information all increased people's trust in recommendations; and (3) Math and logic skills may be as important as ML for decision-makers working with ML recommendations.

Midas Nouwens, Ilaria Liccardi, Michael Veale et al.

New consent management platforms (CMPs) have been introduced to the web to conform with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, particularly its requirements for consent when companies collect and process users' personal data. This work analyses how the most prevalent CMP designs affect people's consent choices. We scraped the designs of the five most popular CMPs on the top 10,000 websites in the UK (n=680). We found that dark patterns and implied consent are ubiquitous; only 11.8% meet the minimal requirements that we set based on European law. Second, we conducted a field experiment with 40 participants to investigate how the eight most common designs affect consent choices. We found that notification style (banner or barrier) has no effect; removing the opt-out button from the first page increases consent by 22--23 percentage points; and providing more granular controls on the first page decreases consent by 8--20 percentage points. This study provides an empirical basis for the necessary regulatory action to enforce the GDPR, in particular the possibility of focusing on the centralised, third-party CMP services as an effective way to increase compliance.