AI Fairness: from Principles to Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09833v1
• Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:37:46 GMT
• Title: AI Fairness: from Principles to Practice
• Authors: Arash Bateni, Matthew C. Chan, Ray Eitel-Porter
• Abstract summary: This paper summarizes and evaluates various approaches, methods, and techniques for pursuing fairness in AI systems. It proposes practical guidelines for defining, measuring, and preventing bias in AI.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper summarizes and evaluates various approaches, methods, and techniques for pursuing fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It examines the merits and shortcomings of these measures and proposes practical guidelines for defining, measuring, and preventing bias in AI. In particular, it cautions against some of the simplistic, yet common, methods for evaluating bias in AI systems, and offers more sophisticated and effective alternatives. The paper also addresses widespread controversies and confusions in the field by providing a common language among different stakeholders of high-impact AI systems. It describes various trade-offs involving AI fairness, and provides practical recommendations for balancing them. It offers techniques for evaluating the costs and benefits of fairness targets, and defines the role of human judgment in setting these targets. This paper provides discussions and guidelines for AI practitioners, organization leaders, and policymakers, as well as various links to additional materials for a more technical audience. Numerous real-world examples are provided to clarify the concepts, challenges, and recommendations from a practical perspective.

Related papers

• Revisiting Technical Bias Mitigation Strategies [0.11510009152620666]
  Efforts to mitigate bias and enhance fairness in the artificial intelligence (AI) community have predominantly focused on technical solutions. While numerous reviews have addressed bias in AI, this review uniquely focuses on the practical limitations of technical solutions in healthcare settings. We illustrate each limitation with empirical studies focusing on healthcare and biomedical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:17:19Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Domain-Specific Evaluation Strategies for AI in Journalism [3.2566808526538873]
  We consider different aspects of AI evaluation that can benefit from domain-specific tailoring. In doing so, we lay out a potential framework to guide AI evaluation in journalism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T17:47:25Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
  This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI. It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems. We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice [64.29355073494125]
  This article aims to ground what we dub the "participatory turn" in AI design by synthesizing existing theoretical literature on participation. We articulate empirical findings concerning the current state of participatory practice in AI design based on an analysis of recently published research and semi-structured interviews with 12 AI researchers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T05:30:42Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Expose Uncertainty, Instill Distrust, Avoid Explanations: Towards Ethical Guidelines for AI [3.0534660670547864]
  I argue that the best way to help humans using AI technology is to make them aware of the intrinsic limitations and problems of AI algorithms. I suggest three ethical guidelines to be used in the presentation of results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-29T14:53:35Z)
• Actionable Approaches to Promote Ethical AI in Libraries [7.1492901819376415]
  The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many domains has revealed numerous ethical issues. No practical guidance currently exists for libraries to plan for, evaluate, or audit the ethics of intended or deployed AI. We report on several promising approaches for promoting ethical AI that can be adapted from other contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-20T16:38:49Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Principles to Practices for Responsible AI: Closing the Gap [0.1749935196721634]
  We argue that an impact assessment framework is a promising approach to close the principles-to-practices gap. We review a case study of AI's use in forest ecosystem restoration, demonstrating how an impact assessment framework can translate into effective and responsible AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T16:04:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.