Asia J. Biega’s research while affiliated with Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy and other places

Microchips are fundamental components of modern electronic devices, yet they remain opaque to the users who rely on them daily. This opacity, compounded by the complexity of global supply chains and the concealment of proprietary information, raises significant security, trust, and accountability issues. We investigate end users' understanding of microchips, exploring their perceptions of the societal implications and information needs regarding these essential technologies. Through an online survey with 250 participants, we found that while our participants were aware of some microchip applications, they lacked awareness of the broader security, societal, and economic implications. While our participants unanimously desired more information on microchips, their specific information needs were shaped by various factors such as the microchip's application environment and one's affinity for technology interaction. Our findings underscore the necessity for improving end users' awareness and understanding of microchips, and we provide possible directions to pursue this end.

Machine learning-driven rankings, where individuals (or items) are ranked in response to a query, mediate search exposure or attention in a variety of safety-critical settings. Thus, it is important to ensure that such rankings are fair. Under the goal of equal opportunity, attention allocated to an individual on a ranking interface should be proportional to their relevance across search queries. In this work, we examine amortized fair ranking -- where relevance and attention are cumulated over a sequence of user queries to make fair ranking more feasible in practice. Unlike prior methods that operate on expected amortized attention for each individual, we define new divergence-based measures for attention distribution-based fairness in ranking (DistFaiR), characterizing unfairness as the divergence between the distribution of attention and relevance corresponding to an individual over time. This allows us to propose new definitions of unfairness, which are more reliable at test time. Second, we prove that group fairness is upper-bounded by individual fairness under this definition for a useful class of divergence measures, and experimentally show that maximizing individual fairness through an integer linear programming-based optimization is often beneficial to group fairness. Lastly, we find that prior research in amortized fair ranking ignores critical information about queries, potentially leading to a fairwashing risk in practice by making rankings appear more fair than they actually are.

The susceptibility to biases and discrimination is a pressing issue in today's labor markets. Though digital recruitment systems play an increasingly significant role in human resources management, thus far we lack a systematic understanding of human-centered design principles for fair online hiring. This work proposes a fair recruitment framework based on job-seekers' fairness concerns shared in an online forum. Through qualitative analysis, we uncover four overarching themes of job-seekers' fairness concerns, including discrimination against sensitive attributes, interaction biases, improper interpretations of qualifications, and power imbalance. Based on these findings, we derive design implications for algorithms and interfaces in recruitment systems, integrating them into a fair recruitment framework spanning different hiring stages and fairness considerations.

Since the emergence of generative AI, creative workers have spoken up about the career-based harms they have experienced arising from this new technology. A common theme in these accounts of harm is that generative AI models are trained on workers' creative output without their consent and without giving credit or compensation to the original creators. This paper reports findings from 20 interviews with creative workers in three domains: visual art and design, writing, and programming. We investigate the gaps between current AI governance strategies, what creative workers want out of generative AI governance, and the nuanced role of creative workers' consent, compensation and credit for training AI models on their work. Finally, we make recommendations for how generative AI can be governed and how operators of generative AI systems might more ethically train models on creative output in the future.

Employers are adopting algorithmic hiring technology throughout the recruitment pipeline. Algorithmic fairness is especially applicable in this domain due to its high stakes and structural inequalities. Unfortunately, most work in this space provides partial treatment, often constrained by two competing narratives, optimistically focused on replacing biased recruiter decisions or pessimistically pointing to the automation of discrimination. Whether, and more importantly what types of , algorithmic hiring can be less biased and more beneficial to society than low-tech alternatives currently remains unanswered, to the detriment of trustworthiness. This multidisciplinary survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness. Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.

General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) aim to safeguard individuals' personal information from harm. While full compliance is mandatory in the European Union and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), it is not in other places. GDPR requires simultaneous compliance with all the principles such as fairness, accuracy, and data minimization. However, it overlooks the potential contradictions within its principles. This matter gets even more complex when compliance is required from decision-making systems. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the feasibility of simultaneously achieving the goals of GDPR and machine learning, and the potential tradeoffs that might be forced upon us. This paper studies the relationship between the principles of data minimization and fairness in recommender systems. We operationalize data minimization via active learning (AL) because, unlike many other methods, it can preserve a high accuracy while allowing for strategic data collection, hence minimizing the amount of data collection. We have implemented several active learning strategies (personalized and non-personalized) and conducted a comparative analysis focusing on accuracy and fairness on two publicly available datasets. The results demonstrate that different AL strategies may have different impacts on the accuracy of recommender systems with nearly all strategies negatively impacting fairness. There has been no to very limited work on the trade-off between data minimization and fairness, the pros and cons of active learning methods as tools for implementing data minimization, and the potential impacts of AL on fairness. By exploring these critical aspects, we offer valuable insights for developing recommender systems that are GDPR compliant.

Through a systematization of generative AI (GenAI) stakeholder goals and expectations, this work seeks to uncover what value different stakeholders see in their contributions to the GenAI supply line. This valuation enables us to understand whether fair use advocated by GenAI companies to train model progresses the copyright law objective of promoting science and arts. While assessing the validity and efficacy of the fair use argument, we uncover research gaps and potential avenues for future works for researchers and policymakers to address.