Human-in-the-loop Fairness: Integrating Stakeholder Feedback to Incorporate Fairness Perspectives in Responsible AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08064v3
• Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 11:23:27 GMT
• Title: Human-in-the-loop Fairness: Integrating Stakeholder Feedback to Incorporate Fairness Perspectives in Responsible AI
• Authors: Evdoxia Taka, Yuri Nakao, Ryosuke Sonoda, Takuya Yokota, Lin Luo, Simone Stumpf,
• Abstract summary: Fairness is a growing concern for high-risk decision-making using Artificial Intelligence (AI) There is no universally accepted fairness measure, fairness is context-dependent, and there might be conflicting perspectives on what is considered fair. Our work follows an approach where stakeholders can give feedback on specific decision instances and their outcomes with respect to their fairness.
• Score: 4.0247545547103325
• License:
• Abstract: Fairness is a growing concern for high-risk decision-making using Artificial Intelligence (AI) but ensuring it through purely technical means is challenging: there is no universally accepted fairness measure, fairness is context-dependent, and there might be conflicting perspectives on what is considered fair. Thus, involving stakeholders, often without a background in AI or fairness, is a promising avenue. Research to directly involve stakeholders is in its infancy, and many questions remain on how to support stakeholders to feedback on fairness, and how this feedback can be integrated into AI models. Our work follows an approach where stakeholders can give feedback on specific decision instances and their outcomes with respect to their fairness, and then to retrain an AI model. In order to investigate this approach, we conducted two studies of a complex AI model for credit rating used in loan applications. In study 1, we collected feedback from 58 lay users on loan application decisions, and conducted offline experiments to investigate the effects on accuracy and fairness metrics. In study 2, we deepened this investigation by showing 66 participants the results of their feedback with respect to fairness, and then conducted further offline analyses. Our work contributes two datasets and associated code frameworks to bootstrap further research, highlights the opportunities and challenges of employing lay user feedback for improving AI fairness, and discusses practical implications for developing AI applications that more closely reflect stakeholder views about fairness.

Related papers

• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders [5.216732191267959]
  We propose a new framework, EARN Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise. The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection. Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework enables stakeholders to express personal preferences and reach consensus, providing practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T07:20:30Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [59.424918263776284]
  The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of large language models (LLMs) We review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness. We develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• Multi-stakeholder Perspective on Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Acceptability in Education [0.0]
  The study investigates the acceptability of different AI applications in education from a multi-stakeholder perspective. It addresses concerns related to data privacy, AI agency, transparency, explainability and the ethical deployment of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T23:59:59Z)
• 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)
• Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
  We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
• On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice [10.591284030838146]
  We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T15:13:36Z)
• Why not both? Complementing explanations with uncertainty, and the role of self-confidence in Human-AI collaboration [12.47276164048813]
  We conduct an empirical study to identify how uncertainty estimates and model explanations affect users' reliance, understanding, and trust towards a model. We also discuss how the latter may distort the outcome of an analysis based on agreement and switching percentages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T12:24:33Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness in Business Analytics: Directions for Research and Practice [24.309795052068388]
  This paper offers a forward-looking, BA-focused review of algorithmic fairness. We first review the state-of-the-art research on sources and measures of bias, as well as bias mitigation algorithms. We then provide a detailed discussion of the utility-fairness relationship, emphasizing that the frequent assumption of a trade-off between these two constructs is often mistaken or short-sighted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T10:21:38Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.