Research Papers

Underestimation Bias and Underfitting in Machine Learning

Padraig Cunningham, Sarah Jane Delany

Often, what is termed algorithmic bias in machine learning will be due to historic bias in the training data. But sometimes the bias may be introduced (or at least exacerbated) by the algorithm itself. The ways in which algorithms can actually accentuate bias has not received a lot of attention with researchers focusing directly on methods to eliminate bias - no matter the source. In this paper we report on initial research to understand the factors that contribute to bias in classification algorithms. We believe this is important because underestimation bias is inextricably tied to regularization, i.e. measures to address overfitting can accentuate bias.

The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice

Ignacio Cofone, Warut Khern-am-nuai

A dominant critique of algorithmic fairness holds that increasing fairness reduces predictive accuracy, imposing a cost on society. We challenge that assumption by empirically analyzing the COMPAS dataset. We make two contributions. First, using causal inference methods, we show that racial bias is not only present in the COMPAS dataset but is also amplified by the models trained on it. Widely used models do more than replicate existing bias; they exacerbate it. This undercuts both the assumption that algorithmic decision-making offers a neutral improvement over human judgment and the weaker claim that it merely mirrors preexisting human bias. Second, we reframe the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. Applying fairness constraints does not necessarily cost predictive accuracy in criminal justice. Prediction systems operationalize concepts such as risk through implicit and often flawed normative choices about what to predict and how. The tradeoff claim assumes that the unconstrained model's prediction is an optimal baseline. Fairness constraints can instead correct distortions introduced by biased outcome variables: rearrest data, in this case, captures and magnifies systemic racial disparities. Under some interventions, therefore, fairness carries none of the cost presumed in policy debates. These dynamics extend beyond criminal justice to lending, hiring, and housing, where biased outcome variables reinforce inequality independently of proxy selection. We draw out what this implies for how law and policy should approach fairness adjustments in criminal law.

Responsible AI in criminal justice: LLMs in policing and risks to case progression

Muffy Calder, Marion Oswald, Elizabeth McClory-Tiarks +2

There is growing interest in the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in policing, but there are potential risks. We have developed a practical approach to identifying risks, grounded in the policing and legal system of England and Wales. We identify 15 policing tasks that could be implemented using LLMs and 17 risks from their use, then illustrate with over 40 examples of impact on case progression. As good practice is agreed, many risks could be reduced. But this requires effort: we need to address these risks in a timely manner and define system wide impacts and benefits.

Reliable and interpretable automated assessment of second-language (L2) speech remains a central challenge, as large speech-language models (SpeechLLMs) often struggle to align with the nuanced variability of human raters. To address this, we introduce a rubric-guided reasoning framework that explicitly encodes multi-aspect human assessment criteria: accuracy, fluency, and prosody, while calibrating model uncertainty to capture natural rating variability. We fine-tune the Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct model using multi-rater human judgments and develop an uncertainty-calibrated regression approach supported by conformal calibration for interpretable confidence intervals. Our Gaussian uncertainty modeling and conformal calibration approach achieves the strongest alignment with human ratings, outperforming regression and classification baselines. The model reliably assesses fluency and prosody while highlighting the inherent difficulty of assessing accuracy. Together, these results demonstrate that rubric-guided, uncertainty-calibrated reasoning offers a principled path toward trustworthy and explainable SpeechLLM-based speech assessment.

Dataset documentation is widely recognized as essential for the responsible development of automated systems. Despite growing efforts to support documentation through different kinds of artifacts, little is known about the motivations shaping documentation tool design or the factors hindering their adoption. We present a systematic review supported by mixed-methods analysis of 59 dataset documentation publications to examine the motivations behind building documentation tools, how authors conceptualize documentation practices, and how these tools connect to existing systems, regulations, and cultural norms. Our analysis shows four persistent patterns in dataset documentation conceptualization that potentially impede adoption and standardization: unclear operationalizations of documentation's value, decontextualized designs, unaddressed labor demands, and a tendency to treat integration as future work. Building on these findings, we propose a shift in Responsible AI tool design toward institutional rather than individual solutions, and outline actions the HCI community can take to enable sustainable documentation practices.

An accurate assessment of L2 English pronunciation is crucial for language learning, as it provides personalized feedback and ensures a fair evaluation of individual progress. However, automated scoring remains challenging due to the complexity of sentence-level fluency, prosody, and completeness. This paper evaluates the zero-shot performance of Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct, an instruction-tuned speech-LLM, on 5,000 Speechocean762 utterances. The model generates rubric-aligned scores for accuracy, fluency, prosody, and completeness, showing strong agreement with human ratings within +-2 tolerance, especially for high-quality speech. However, it tends to overpredict low-quality speech scores and lacks precision in error detection. These findings demonstrate the strong potential of speech LLMs in scalable pronunciation assessment and suggest future improvements through enhanced prompting, calibration, and phonetic integration to advance Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training.

The Voice of Equity: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Techniques for Speech-Based Cognitive Impairment Detection Across Architectures and Demographics

Yasaman Haghbin, Sina Rashidi, Ali Zolnour +1

Speech-based detection of cognitive impairment offers a scalable, non-invasive screening, yet algorithmic bias across demographic and linguistic subgroups remains critically underexplored. We present the first comprehensive fairness analysis framework for speech-based multi-class cognitive impairment detection, systematically evaluating bias mitigation across architectures, and demographic subgroups. We developed two transformer-based architectures, SpeechCARE-AGF and Whisper-LWF-LoRA, on the multilingual NIA PREPARE Challenge dataset. Unlike prior work that typically examines single mitigation techniques, we compared pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing approaches, assessing fairness via Equality of Opportunity and Equalized Odds across gender, age, education, and language. Both models achieved strong performance (F1: SpeechCARE-AGF 70.87, Whisper-LWF-LoRA 71.46) but exhibited substantial fairness disparities. Adults >=80 showed lower sensitivity versus younger groups; Spanish speakers demonstrated reduced TPR versus English speakers. Mitigation effectiveness varied by architecture: oversampling improved SpeechCARE-AGF for older adults (80+ TPR: 46.19%=>49.97%) but minimally affected Whisper-LWF-LoRA. This study addresses a critical healthcare AI gap by demonstrating that architectural design fundamentally shapes bias patterns and mitigation effectiveness. Adaptive fusion mechanisms enable flexible responses to data interventions, while frequency reweighting offers robust improvements across architectures. Our findings establish that fairness interventions must be tailored to both model architecture and demographic characteristics, providing a systematic framework for developing equitable speech-based screening tools essential for reducing diagnostic disparities in cognitive healthcare.

Explainability domain generalization and rare class reliability are critical challenges in medical AI where deep models often fail under real world distribution shifts and exhibit bias against infrequent clinical conditions This paper introduces XAIMeD an explainable medical AI framework that integrates clinically accurate expert knowledge into deep learning through a unified neuro symbolic architecture XAIMeD is designed to improve robustness under distribution shift enhance rare class sensitivity and deliver transparent clinically aligned interpretations The framework encodes clinical expertise as logical connectives over atomic medical propositions transforming them into machine checkable class specific rules Their diagnostic utility is quantified through weighted feature satisfaction scores enabling a symbolic reasoning branch that complements neural predictions A confidence weighted fusion integrates symbolic and deep outputs while a Hunt inspired adaptive routing mechanism guided by Entropy Imbalance Gain EIG and Rare Class Gini mitigates class imbalance high intra class variability and uncertainty We evaluate XAIMeD across diverse modalities on four challenging tasks i Seizure Onset Zone SOZ localization from rs fMRI ii Diabetic Retinopathy grading across 6 multicenter datasets demonstrate substantial performance improvements including 6 percent gains in cross domain generalization and a 10 percent improved rare class F1 score far outperforming state of the art deep learning baselines Ablation studies confirm that the clinically grounded symbolic components act as effective regularizers ensuring robustness to distribution shifts XAIMeD thus provides a principled clinically faithful and interpretable approach to multimodal medical AI.

Accelerated material discovery increasingly relies on artificial intelligence and machine learning, collectively termed "AI/ML". A key challenge in using AI is ensuring that human scientists trust the models are valid and reliable. Accordingly, we define a trustworthy AI framework GIFTERS for materials science and discovery to evaluate whether reported machine learning methods are generalizable, interpretable, fair, transparent, explainable, robust, and stable. Through a critical literature review, we highlight that these are the trustworthiness principles most valued by the materials discovery community. However, we also find that comprehensive approaches to trustworthiness are rarely reported; this is quantified by a median GIFTERS score of 5/7. We observe that Bayesian studies frequently omit fair data practices, while non-Bayesian studies most frequently omit interpretability. Finally, we identify approaches for improving trustworthiness methods in artificial intelligence and machine learning for materials science by considering work accomplished in other scientific disciplines such as healthcare, climate science, and natural language processing with an emphasis on methods that may transfer to materials discovery experiments. By combining these observations, we highlight the necessity of human-in-the-loop, and integrated approaches to bridge the gap between trustworthiness and uncertainty quantification for future directions of materials science research. This ensures that AI/ML methods not only accelerate discovery, but also meet ethical and scientific norms established by the materials discovery community. This work provides a road map for developing trustworthy artificial intelligence systems that will accurately and confidently enable material discovery.

AI tools are proliferating in human resources management (HRM) and recruiting, helping to mediate access to the labor market. As these systems spread, profession-specific transparency needs emerging from black-boxed systems in HRM move into focus. Prior work often frames transparency technically or abstractly, but we contend AI transparency is a social project shaped by materials, meanings, and competencies of practice. This paper introduces the Talent Acquisition and Recruiting AI (TARAI) Index, situating AI systems within the social practice of recruiting by examining product functionality, claims, assumptions, and AI clarity. Built through an iterative, mixed-methods process, the database demonstrates how transparency emerges: not as a fixed property, but as a dynamic outcome shaped by professional practices, interactions, and competencies. By centering social practice, our work offers a grounded, actionable approach to understanding and articulating AI transparency in HR and provides a blueprint for participatory database design for contextual transparency in professional practice.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts, where their opacity raises significant challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. The so-called ``black box problem'' undermines the legitimacy of automated decision-making, as affected individuals often lack access to meaningful explanations. In response, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency, ranging from example-based and rule-based techniques to hybrid and argumentation-based approaches. This paper promotes computational models of arguments and their role in providing legally relevant explanations, with particular attention to their alignment with emerging regulatory frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). We analyze the strengths and limitations of different explanation strategies, evaluate their applicability to legal reasoning, and highlight how argumentation frameworks -- by capturing the defeasible, contestable, and value-sensitive nature of law -- offer a particularly robust foundation for explainable legal AI. Finally, we identify open challenges and research directions, including bias mitigation, empirical validation in judicial settings, and compliance with evolving ethical and legal standards, arguing that computational argumentation is best positioned to meet both technical and normative requirements of transparency in the law domain.

Artificial intelligence has become a part of the provision of governmental services, from making decisions about benefits to issuing fines for parking violations. However, AI systems rarely live up to the promise of neutral optimisation, creating biased or incorrect outputs and reducing the agency of both citizens and civic workers to shape the way decisions are made. Transparency is a principle that can both help subjects understand decisions made about them and shape the processes behind those decisions. However, transparency as practiced around AI systems tends to focus on the production of technical objects that represent algorithmic aspects of decision making. These are often difficult for publics to understand, do not connect to potential for action, and do not give insight into the wider socio-material context of decision making. In this paper, we build on existing approaches that take a human-centric view on AI transparency, combined with a socio-technical systems view, to develop the concept of meaningful transparency for civic AI systems: transparencies that allow publics to engage with AI systems that affect their lives, connecting understanding with potential for action.