Mapping the Potential of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for Fairness Along the AI Lifecycle
2404.18736
0
0
Abstract
The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems across various domains is increasingly surfacing issues related to algorithmic fairness, especially in high-stakes scenarios. Thus, critical considerations of how fairness in AI systems might be improved -- and what measures are available to aid this process -- are overdue. Many researchers and policymakers see explainable AI (XAI) as a promising way to increase fairness in AI systems. However, there is a wide variety of XAI methods and fairness conceptions expressing different desiderata, and the precise connections between XAI and fairness remain largely nebulous. Besides, different measures to increase algorithmic fairness might be applicable at different points throughout an AI system's lifecycle. Yet, there currently is no coherent mapping of fairness desiderata along the AI lifecycle. In this paper, we we distill eight fairness desiderata, map them along the AI lifecycle, and discuss how XAI could help address each of them. We hope to provide orientation for practical applications and to inspire XAI research specifically focused on these fairness desiderata.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper explores the potential of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to address fairness issues throughout the AI lifecycle, from model development to deployment and monitoring.
ā¢ The authors review the current state of XAI research and identify key areas where XAI can contribute to fairness, such as model interpretability, causal reasoning, and human-AI collaboration.
ā¢ The paper provides a comprehensive framework for leveraging XAI to promote fairness in AI systems, with a focus on fairness in generative AI models and fairness in predictive models.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses how Explainable AI (XAI) can be used to improve the fairness of AI systems throughout their entire lifecycle, from the initial model development to the final deployment and monitoring.
The authors first provide an overview of the current state of XAI research and identify key areas where it can contribute to fairness. For example, XAI can help make AI models more interpretable, allowing humans to better understand how the models are making decisions. It can also support causal reasoning, which is important for identifying and mitigating potential sources of bias. Additionally, XAI can facilitate better collaboration between humans and AI systems, helping to ensure that the AI is behaving in a fair and ethical manner.
The paper then presents a comprehensive framework for using XAI to promote fairness in AI. This includes strategies for addressing fairness in generative AI models, which are used to create new data, as well as fairness in predictive models, which are used to make forecasts or decisions.
Overall, the paper highlights the significant potential of XAI to improve the fairness and accountability of AI systems, which is crucial as these technologies become increasingly prevalent in our lives.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by providing an overview of the current state of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research and its potential to address fairness issues in AI systems. The authors identify several key areas where XAI can contribute to fairness, including model interpretability, causal reasoning, and human-AI collaboration.
The paper then presents a comprehensive framework for leveraging XAI to promote fairness in AI systems across the entire lifecycle, from model development to deployment and monitoring. This includes strategies for addressing fairness in generative AI models, which are used to create new data, as well as fairness in predictive models, which are used to make forecasts or decisions.
The authors explore how XAI can be leveraged to improve model interpretability, support causal reasoning, and foster better human-AI collaboration, all of which are essential for ensuring the fairness and accountability of AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive and well-researched overview of the potential for XAI to address fairness issues in AI. However, the authors do acknowledge several caveats and limitations to their framework.
For example, they note that the effectiveness of XAI in improving fairness is heavily dependent on the specific context and application of the AI system. Additionally, they highlight the challenge of defining and measuring fairness, which can be subjective and complex, particularly in the presence of multiple, potentially conflicting fairness criteria.
The paper also raises concerns about the scalability and practicality of some XAI techniques, particularly in high-stakes or time-sensitive decision-making scenarios. There may be a trade-off between the level of explainability and the performance or efficiency of the AI system.
Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the potential for XAI to be misused or misinterpreted, and the importance of careful design and deployment of these techniques to ensure they are not inadvertently introducing new sources of bias or unfairness.
Overall, the paper provides a thoughtful and nuanced perspective on the role of XAI in promoting fairness in AI, while also highlighting the need for continued research and careful consideration of the limitations and potential pitfalls.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive exploration of the potential for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to address fairness issues throughout the AI lifecycle. The authors review the current state of XAI research and identify key areas where it can contribute to fairness, such as model interpretability, causal reasoning, and human-AI collaboration.
The paper then provides a comprehensive framework for leveraging XAI to promote fairness in AI systems, with a focus on fairness in generative AI models and fairness in predictive models. The authors highlight the significant potential of XAI to improve the fairness and accountability of AI, while also acknowledging the limitations and challenges that must be addressed.
Overall, this paper offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the role of XAI in ensuring the ethical and responsible development and deployment of AI technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š
Fair by design: A sociotechnical approach to justifying the fairness of AI-enabled systems across the lifecycle
Marten H. L. Kaas, Christopher Burr, Zoe Porter, Berk Ozturk, Philippa Ryan, Michael Katell, Nuala Polo, Kalle Westerling, Ibrahim Habli
0
0
Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines, and the development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation. But most approaches to addressing the fairness of AI-enabled systems are limited in scope in two significant ways: their substantive content focuses on statistical measures of fairness, and they do not emphasize the need to identify and address fairness considerations across the whole AI lifecycle. Our contribution is to present an assurance framework and tool that can enable a practical and transparent method for widening the scope of fairness considerations across the AI lifecycle and move the discussion beyond mere statistical notions of fairness to consider a richer analysis in a practical and context-dependent manner. To illustrate this approach, we first describe and then apply the framework of Trustworthy and Ethical Assurance (TEA) to an AI-enabled clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) whose purpose is to help clinicians predict the risk of developing hypertension in patients with Type 2 diabetes, a context in which several fairness considerations arise (e.g., discrimination against patient subgroups). This is supplemented by an open-source tool and a fairness considerations map to help facilitate reasoning about the fairness of AI-enabled systems in a participatory way. In short, by using a shared framework for identifying, documenting and justifying fairness considerations, and then using this deliberative exercise to structure an assurance case, research on AI fairness becomes reusable and generalizable for others in the ethical AI community and for sharing best practices for achieving fairness and equity in digital health and healthcare in particular.
6/14/2024
āļø
Formal Specification, Assessment, and Enforcement of Fairness for Generative AIs
Chih-Hong Cheng, Changshun Wu, Harald Ruess, Xingyu Zhao, Saddek Bensalem
0
0
Reinforcing or even exacerbating societal biases and inequalities will increase significantly as generative AI increasingly produces useful artifacts, from text to images and beyond, for the real world. We address these issues by formally characterizing the notion of fairness for generative AI as a basis for monitoring and enforcing fairness. We define two levels of fairness using the notion of infinite sequences of abstractions of AI-generated artifacts such as text or images. The first is the fairness demonstrated on the generated sequences, which is evaluated only on the outputs while agnostic to the prompts and models used. The second is the inherent fairness of the generative AI model, which requires that fairness be manifested when input prompts are neutral, that is, they do not explicitly instruct the generative AI to produce a particular type of output. We also study relative intersectional fairness to counteract the combinatorial explosion of fairness when considering multiple categories together with lazy fairness enforcement. Finally, fairness monitoring and enforcement are tested against some current generative AI models.
5/7/2024
š¤
Understanding User Preferences in Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey and a Mapping Function Proposal
Maryam Hashemi, Ali Darejeh, Francisco Cruz
0
0
The increasing complexity of AI systems has led to the growth of the field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which aims to provide explanations and justifications for the outputs of AI algorithms. While there is considerable demand for XAI, there remains a scarcity of studies aimed at comprehensively understanding the practical distinctions among different methods and effectively aligning each method with users individual needs, and ideally, offer a mapping function which can map each user with its specific needs to a method of explainability. This study endeavors to bridge this gap by conducting a thorough review of extant research in XAI, with a specific focus on Explainable Machine Learning (XML), and a keen eye on user needs. Our main objective is to offer a classification of XAI methods within the realm of XML, categorizing current works into three distinct domains: philosophy, theory, and practice, and providing a critical review for each category. Moreover, our study seeks to facilitate the connection between XAI users and the most suitable methods for them and tailor explanations to meet their specific needs by proposing a mapping function that take to account users and their desired properties and suggest an XAI method to them. This entails an examination of prevalent XAI approaches and an evaluation of their properties. The primary outcome of this study is the formulation of a clear and concise strategy for selecting the optimal XAI method to achieve a given goal, all while delivering personalized explanations tailored to individual users.
6/21/2024
False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Neo Christopher Chung, Hongkyou Chung, Hearim Lee, Lennart Brocki, Hongbeom Chung, George Dyer
0
0
A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. Explainability has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous box-ticking exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.
6/14/2024