Adversarial Scrutiny of Evidentiary Statistical Software
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The U.S. criminal legal system increasingly relies on software output to convict and incarcerate people. In a large number of cases each year, the government makes these consequential decisions based on evidence from statistical software -- such as probabilistic genotyping, environmental audio detection, and toolmark analysis tools -- that defense counsel cannot fully cross-examine or scrutinize. This undermines the commitments of the adversarial criminal legal system, which relies on the defense's ability to probe and test the prosecution's case to safeguard individual rights. Responding to this need to adversarially scrutinize output from such software, we propose robust adversarial testing as an audit framework to examine the validity of evidentiary statistical software. We define and operationalize this notion of robust adversarial testing for defense use by drawing on a large body of recent work in robust machine learning and algorithmic fairness. We demonstrate how this framework both standardizes the process for scrutinizing such tools and empowers defense lawyers to examine their validity for instances most relevant to the case at hand. We further discuss existing structural and institutional challenges within the U.S. criminal legal system that may create barriers for implementing this and other such audit frameworks and close with a discussion on policy changes that could help address these concerns.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 115 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 2022.
Builds on
15 of 115 references.
References · 15
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 411
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
- 2019Problem Formulation and Fairnesscited by 85
- 2020Outcome Indistinguishabilitycited by 74
- 2019Roles for Computing in Social Changecited by 49
- 2022Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learningcited by 47
- 2021Hyperparameter Optimization Is Deceiving Us, and How to Stop Itcited by 20
- 2021A Silicon Valley Love Triangle: Hiring Algorithms, Pseudo-Science, and the Quest for Auditabilitycited by 16
3 more
- 2021Patterns, predictions, and actions: A story about machine learningcited by 14
- 2022An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AIcited by 10
- 2021Defending IEEE Software Standards in Federal Criminal Courtcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
5 papers.
- 2023Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learningcited by 30
- 2023Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunitiescited by 5
- 2024(Beyond) Reasonable Doubt: Challenges that Public Defenders Face in Scrutinizing AI in Courtcited by 3
- 2023Greedy PIG: Adaptive Integrated Gradientscited by 0
- 2026Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Softwarecited by 0
- 2026Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Software13 Apr 2026
- 2024(Beyond) Reasonable Doubt: Challenges that Public Defenders Face in Scrutinizing AI in Court13 Mar 2024
- 2023Greedy PIG: Adaptive Integrated Gradients10 Nov 2023
- 2023Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learning8 Feb 2023
- 2023Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunities13 Jan 2023