AI Policy Projector: Grounding LLM Policy Design in Iterative Mapmaking

Whether a large language model policy is an explicit constitution or an implicit reward model, it is challenging to assess coverage over the unbounded set of real-world situations that a policy must contend with. We introduce an AI policy design process inspired by mapmaking, which has developed tactics for visualizing and iterating on maps even when full coverage is not possible. With Policy Projector, policy designers can survey the landscape of model input-output pairs, define custom regions (e.g., "violence"), and navigate these regions with rules that can be applied to LLM outputs (e.g., if output contains "violence" and "graphic details," then rewrite without "graphic details"). Policy Projector supports interactive policy authoring using LLM classification and steering and a map visualization reflecting the policy designer's work. In an evaluation with 12 AI safety experts, our system helps policy designers to address problematic model behaviors extending beyond an existing, comprehensive harm taxonomy.

Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Use

As public sector agencies rapidly introduce new AI tools in high-stakes domains like social services, it becomes critical to understand how decisions to adopt these tools are made in practice. We borrow from the anthropological practice to ``study up'' those in positions of power, and reorient our study of public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about the role that AI tools will play in their agency. Through semi-structured interviews and design activities with 16 agency decision-makers, we examine how decisions about AI design and adoption are influenced by their interactions with and assumptions about other actors within these agencies (e.g., frontline workers and agency leaders), as well as those above (legal systems and contracted companies), and below (impacted communities). By centering these networks of power relations, our findings shed light on how infrastructural, legal, and social factors create barriers and disincentives to the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in decisions about AI design and adoption. Agency decision-makers desired more practical support for stakeholder involvement around public sector AI to help overcome the knowledge and power differentials they perceived between them and other stakeholders (e.g., frontline workers and impacted community members). Building on these findings, we discuss implications for future research and policy around actualizing participatory AI approaches in public sector contexts.

Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under Confounding

Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by making strong assumptions about the data-generating mechanism. In this work, we propose a method to compare the predictive performance of decision policies under a variety of modern identification approaches from the causal inference and off-policy evaluation literatures (e.g., instrumental variable, marginal sensitivity model, proximal variable). Key to our method is the insight that there are regions of uncertainty that we can safely ignore in the policy comparison. We develop a practical approach for finite-sample estimation of regret intervals under no assumptions on the parametric form of the status quo policy. We verify our framework theoretically and via synthetic data experiments. We conclude with a real-world application using our framework to support a pre-deployment evaluation of a proposed modification to a healthcare enrollment policy.

Wikibench: Community-Driven Data Curation for AI Evaluation on Wikipedia

AI tools are increasingly deployed in community contexts. However, datasets used to evaluate AI are typically created by developers and annotators outside a given community, which can yield misleading conclusions about AI performance. How might we empower communities to drive the intentional design and curation of evaluation datasets for AI that impacts them? We investigate this question on Wikipedia, an online community with multiple AI-based content moderation tools deployed. We introduce Wikibench, a system that enables communities to collaboratively curate AI evaluation datasets, while navigating ambiguities and differences in perspective through discussion. A field study on Wikipedia shows that datasets curated using Wikibench can effectively capture community consensus, disagreement, and uncertainty. Furthermore, study participants used Wikibench to shape the overall data curation process, including refining label definitions, determining data inclusion criteria, and authoring data statements. Based on our findings, we propose future directions for systems that support community-driven data curation.

Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge

A growing body of research has explored how to support humans in making better use of AI-based decision support, including via training and onboarding. Existing research has focused on decision-making tasks where it is possible to evaluate "appropriate reliance" by comparing each decision against a ground truth label that cleanly maps to both the AI's predictive target and the human decision-maker's goals. However, this assumption does not hold in many real-world settings where AI tools are deployed today (e.g., social work, criminal justice, and healthcare). In this paper, we introduce a process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. To explore how training can support critical use, we conduct a randomized online experiment in a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to practice AI-assisted decision-making in this setting, novices came to exhibit patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers. A qualitative examination of participants' explanations for their AI-assisted decisions revealed that they drew upon qualitative case narratives, to which the AI model did not have access, to learn when (not) to rely on AI predictions. Our findings open new questions for the study and design of training for real-world AI-assisted decision-making.

Recentering Validity Considerations through Early-Stage Deliberations Around AI and Policy Design

AI-based decision-making tools are rapidly spreading across a range of real-world, complex domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child welfare. A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. However, in real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering the design of associated organizational and public policies. Yet, considerations around how an AI tool may interface with policy are often only discussed retrospectively, after the tool is designed or deployed. In this short position paper, we discuss opportunities to promote multi-stakeholder deliberations around the design of AI-based technologies and associated policies, at the earliest stages of a new project.

Understanding Frontline Workers' and Unhoused Individuals' Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Services

Recent years have seen growing adoption of AI-based decision-support systems (ADS) in homeless services, yet we know little about stakeholder desires and concerns surrounding their use. In this work, we aim to understand impacted stakeholders' perspectives on a deployed ADS that prioritizes scarce housing resources. We employed AI lifecycle comicboarding, an adapted version of the comicboarding method, to elicit stakeholder feedback and design ideas across various components of an AI system's design. We elicited feedback from county workers who operate the ADS daily, service providers whose work is directly impacted by the ADS, and unhoused individuals in the region. Our participants shared concerns and design suggestions around the AI system's overall objective, specific model design choices, dataset selection, and use in deployment. Our findings demonstrate that stakeholders, even without AI knowledge, can provide specific and critical feedback on an AI system's design and deployment, if empowered to do so.

Exploring Challenges and Opportunities to Support Designers in Learning to Co-create with AI-based Manufacturing Design Tools

AI-based design tools are proliferating in professional software to assist engineering and industrial designers in complex manufacturing and design tasks. These tools take on more agentic roles than traditional computer-aided design tools and are often portrayed as "co-creators." Yet, working effectively with such systems requires different skills than working with complex CAD tools alone. To date, we know little about how engineering designers learn to work with AI-based design tools. In this study, we observed trained designers as they learned to work with two AI-based tools on a realistic design task. We find that designers face many challenges in learning to effectively co-create with current systems, including challenges in understanding and adjusting AI outputs and in communicating their design goals. Based on our findings, we highlight several design opportunities to better support designer-AI co-creation.

Ground Truth: A Causal Framework for Proxy Labels in Human-Algorithm Decision-Making

A growing literature on human-AI decision-making investigates strategies for combining human judgment with statistical models to improve decision-making. Research in this area often evaluates proposed improvements to models, interfaces, or workflows by demonstrating improved predictive performance on "ground truth" labels. However, this practice overlooks a key difference between human judgments and model predictions. Whereas humans reason about broader phenomena of interest in a decision -- including latent constructs that are not directly observable, such as disease status, the "toxicity" of online comments, or future "job performance" -- predictive models target proxy labels that are readily available in existing datasets. Predictive models' reliance on simplistic proxies makes them vulnerable to various sources of statistical bias. In this paper, we identify five sources of target variable bias that can impact the validity of proxy labels in human-AI decision-making tasks. We develop a causal framework to disentangle the relationship between each bias and clarify which are of concern in specific human-AI decision-making tasks. We demonstrate how our framework can be used to articulate implicit assumptions made in prior modeling work, and we recommend evaluation strategies for verifying whether these assumptions hold in practice. We then leverage our framework to re-examine the designs of prior human subjects experiments that investigate human-AI decision-making, finding that only a small fraction of studies examine factors related to target variable bias. We conclude by discussing opportunities to better address target variable bias in future research.

Counterfactual Prediction Under Outcome Measurement Error

Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support.