Towards Standardizing AI Bias Exploration
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper proposes a standardized framework for exploring and mitigating bias in AI systems. • It aims to address the lack of consistent approaches and terminology in the field of AI bias research. • The framework covers the entire lifecycle of bias exploration, from problem framing to mitigation evaluation.
Plain English Explanation
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can sometimes exhibit biases, which means they may treat certain groups unfairly or make decisions based on problematic assumptions. Researchers have been working to understand and address these biases, but the field has lacked a consistent, standardized approach.
This paper introduces a framework to help researchers and developers better explore and mitigate biases in AI. The framework covers the entire process, from defining the bias problem you want to study, to selecting appropriate bias measurement techniques, to evaluating the effectiveness of bias mitigation strategies.
The goal is to provide a more structured way of tackling AI bias, so that researchers can build on each other's work and make meaningful progress in this important area. By using common terms and following a standard process, the hope is that the field of AI bias research can become more coherent and productive.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a standardized framework for AI bias exploration, consisting of four main components:
-
Problem Framing: Clearly defining the bias problem, including the target AI system, the relevant stakeholders, and the specific harms or unfairness to be addressed.
-
Bias Measurement: Selecting appropriate bias measurement techniques, such as those outlined in related work like A Principled Approach to New Bias Measures, to quantify the bias in the AI system.
-
Bias Mitigation: Implementing bias mitigation strategies, informed by research like When Mitigating Bias is Unfair: Multiplicity and Arbitrariness in AI Systems, to address the identified biases.
-
Mitigation Evaluation: Assessing the effectiveness of the bias mitigation techniques, using frameworks such as Bridging the Gap: Towards a Protocol for the Consistent and Fair Evaluation of Affect.
The authors argue that this standardized approach can help address the current lack of consistency and comparability in AI bias research, as highlighted in Fairness in AI: Challenges and Bridging the Gap and Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: A Multidisciplinary Survey.
Critical Analysis
The proposed framework is a valuable contribution to the field of AI bias research, as it provides a structured way to approach the complex problem of identifying and mitigating biases in AI systems. However, the authors acknowledge that the framework is not a silver bullet and that there are still many challenges to be addressed.
One potential limitation is the difficulty in defining and measuring bias, as different stakeholders may have different perspectives on what constitutes unfair bias. The framework relies on the selection of appropriate bias measurement techniques, which can be subjective and may not capture all forms of bias.
Additionally, the effectiveness of bias mitigation strategies can be highly context-dependent, and the framework does not provide specific guidance on how to select the most appropriate mitigation techniques for a given problem. Further research and real-world testing may be needed to refine the framework and provide more practical guidance.
Conclusion
This paper presents a much-needed standardized framework for exploring and mitigating bias in AI systems. By providing a structured approach to problem framing, bias measurement, mitigation, and evaluation, the authors aim to improve the consistency and comparability of AI bias research.
While the framework does not solve all the challenges in this complex field, it represents an important step towards a more coherent and rigorous approach to addressing the critical issue of bias in AI. As the field continues to evolve, this framework can serve as a foundation for further advancements and help ensure that AI systems are developed and deployed in a fair and equitable manner.
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
0
Towards Standardizing AI Bias Exploration
Emmanouil Krasanakis, Symeon Papadopoulos
Creating fair AI systems is a complex problem that involves the assessment of context-dependent bias concerns. Existing research and programming libraries express specific concerns as measures of bias that they aim to constrain or mitigate. In practice, one should explore a wide variety of (sometimes incompatible) measures before deciding which ones warrant corrective action, but their narrow scope means that most new situations can only be examined after devising new measures. In this work, we present a mathematical framework that distils literature measures of bias into building blocks, hereby facilitating new combinations to cover a wide range of fairness concerns, such as classification or recommendation differences across multiple multi-value sensitive attributes (e.g., many genders and races, and their intersections). We show how this framework generalizes existing concepts and present frequently used blocks. We provide an open-source implementation of our framework as a Python library, called FairBench, that facilitates systematic and extensible exploration of potential bias concerns.
Read more5/30/2024
📉
0
A Principled Approach for a New Bias Measure
Bruno Scarone, Alfredo Viola, Ren'ee J. Miller, Ricardo Baeza-Yates
The widespread use of machine learning and data-driven algorithms for decision making has been steadily increasing over many years. The areas in which this is happening are diverse: healthcare, employment, finance, education, the legal system to name a few; and the associated negative side effects are being increasingly harmful for society. Negative data emph{bias} is one of those, which tends to result in harmful consequences for specific groups of people. Any mitigation strategy or effective policy that addresses the negative consequences of bias must start with awareness that bias exists, together with a way to understand and quantify it. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to measure data bias and oftentimes the intended meaning is context dependent and not uniform within the research community. The main contributions of our work are: (1) The definition of Uniform Bias (UB), the first bias measure with a clear and simple interpretation in the full range of bias values. (2) A systematic study to characterize the flaws of existing measures in the context of anti employment discrimination rules used by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, additionally showing how UB solves open problems in this domain. (3) A framework that provides an efficient way to derive a mathematical formula for a bias measure based on an algorithmic specification of bias addition. Our results are experimentally validated using nine publicly available datasets and theoretically analyzed, which provide novel insights about the problem. Based on our approach, we also design a bias mitigation model that might be useful to policymakers.
Read more9/12/2024
❗
0
Fair Enough? A map of the current limitations of the requirements to have fair algorithms
Daniele Regoli, Alessandro Castelnovo, Nicole Inverardi, Gabriele Nanino, Ilaria Penco
In recent years, the increase in the usage and efficiency of Artificial Intelligence and, more in general, of Automated Decision-Making systems has brought with it an increasing and welcome awareness of the risks associated with such systems. One of such risks is that of perpetuating or even amplifying bias and unjust disparities present in the data from which many of these systems learn to adjust and optimise their decisions. This awareness has on the one hand encouraged several scientific communities to come up with more and more appropriate ways and methods to assess, quantify, and possibly mitigate such biases and disparities. On the other hand, it has prompted more and more layers of society, including policy makers, to call for fair algorithms. We believe that while many excellent and multidisciplinary research is currently being conducted, what is still fundamentally missing is the awareness that having fair algorithms is per se a nearly meaningless requirement that needs to be complemented with many additional social choices to become actionable. Namely, there is a hiatus between what the society is demanding from Automated Decision-Making systems, and what this demand actually means in real-world scenarios. In this work, we outline the key features of such a hiatus and pinpoint a set of crucial open points that we as a society must address in order to give a concrete meaning to the increasing demand of fairness in Automated Decision-Making systems.
Read more9/24/2024
0
Ensuring Fairness with Transparent Auditing of Quantitative Bias in AI Systems
Chih-Cheng Rex Yuan, Bow-Yaw Wang
With the rapid advancement of AI, there is a growing trend to integrate AI into decision-making processes. However, AI systems may exhibit biases that lead decision-makers to draw unfair conclusions. Notably, the COMPAS system used in the American justice system to evaluate recidivism was found to favor racial majority groups; specifically, it violates a fairness standard called equalized odds. Various measures have been proposed to assess AI fairness. We present a framework for auditing AI fairness, involving third-party auditors and AI system providers, and we have created a tool to facilitate systematic examination of AI systems. The tool is open-sourced and publicly available. Unlike traditional AI systems, we advocate a transparent white-box and statistics-based approach. It can be utilized by third-party auditors, AI developers, or the general public for reference when judging the fairness criterion of AI systems.
Read more9/12/2024