Emma Harvey

Each year, selective American colleges sort through tens of thousands of applications to identify a first-year class that displays both academic merit and diversity. In the 2023-2024 admissions cycle, these colleges faced unprecedented challenges. First, the number of applications has been steadily growing. Second, test-optional policies that have remained in place since the COVID-19 pandemic limit access to key information historically predictive of academic success. Most recently, longstanding debates over affirmative action culminated in the Supreme Court banning race-conscious admissions. Colleges have explored machine learning (ML) models to address the issues of scale and missing test scores, often via ranking algorithms intended to focus on ’top’ applicants. However, the Court’s ruling will force changes to these models, which were able to consider race as a factor in ranking. There is currently a poor understanding of how these mandated changes will shape applicant ranking algorithms, and, by extension, admitted classes. We seek to address this by quantifying the impact of different admission policies on the applications prioritized for review. We show that removing race data from a developed applicant ranking algorithm reduces the diversity of the top-ranked pool without meaningfully increasing the academic merit of that pool. We contextualize this impact by showing that excluding data on applicant race has a greater impact than excluding other potentially informative variables like intended majors. Finally, we measure the impact of policy change on individuals by comparing the arbitrariness in applicant rank attributable to policy change to the arbitrariness attributable to randomness. We find that any given policy has a high degree of arbitrariness and that removing race data from the ranking algorithm increases arbitrariness in outcomes for most applicants.

Motion capture systems, used across various domains, make body representations concrete through technical processes. We argue that the measurement of bodies and the validation of measurements for motion capture systems can be understood as social practices. By analyzing the findings of a systematic literature review (N=278) through the lens of social practice theory, we show how these practices, and their varying attention to errors, become ingrained in motion capture design and innovation over time. Moreover, we show how contemporary motion capture systems perpetuate assumptions about human bodies and their movements. We suggest that social practices of measurement and validation are ubiquitous in the development of data- and sensor-driven systems more broadly, and provide this work as a basis for investigating hidden design assumptions and their potential negative consequences in human-computer interaction.

Algorithmic audits (or ‘AI audits’) are an increasingly popular mechanism for algorithmic accountability; however, they remain poorly defined. Without a clear understanding of audit practices, let alone widely used standards or regulatory guidance, claims that an AI product or system has been audited, whether by first-, second-, or third-party auditors, are difficult to verify and may potentially exacerbate, rather than mitigate, bias and harm. To address this knowledge gap, we provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We share a catalog of individuals (N=438) and organizations (N=189) who engage in algorithmic audits or whose work is directly relevant to algorithmic audits; conduct an anonymous survey of the group (N=152); and interview industry leaders (N=10). We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace, and enumerate common barriers to leveraging algorithmic audits as effective accountability mechanisms. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits, and highlight proposals with wide support from algorithmic auditors as well as areas of debate. Our recommendations have implications for lawmakers, regulators, internal company policymakers, and standards-setting bodies, as well as for auditors. They are: 1) require the owners and operators of AI systems to engage in independent algorithmic audits against clearly defined standards; 2) notify individuals when they are subject to algorithmic decision-making systems; 3) mandate disclosure of key components of audit findings for peer review; 4) consider real-world harm in the audit process, including through standardized harm incident reporting and response mechanisms; 5) directly involve the stakeholders most likely to be harmed by AI systems in the algorithmic audit process; and 6) formalize evaluation and, potentially, accreditation of algorithmic auditors.