Fairness Concerns in App Reviews: A Study on AI-based Mobile Apps
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08097v3
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:24:06 GMT
- Title: Fairness Concerns in App Reviews: A Study on AI-based Mobile Apps
- Authors: Ali Rezaei Nasab, Maedeh Dashti, Mojtaba Shahin, Mansooreh Zahedi, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Chetan Arora, Peng Liang,
- Abstract summary: Unfair AI-based systems, particularly unfair AI-based mobile apps, can pose difficulties for a significant proportion of the global population.
We first manually constructed a ground-truth dataset, including 1,132 fairness and 1,473 non-fairness reviews.
We developed and evaluated a set of machine learning and deep learning models that distinguish fairness reviews from non-fairness reviews.
- Score: 9.948068408730654
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Fairness is one of the socio-technical concerns that must be addressed in AI-based systems. Unfair AI-based systems, particularly unfair AI-based mobile apps, can pose difficulties for a significant proportion of the global population. This paper aims to analyze fairness concerns in AI-based app reviews. We first manually constructed a ground-truth dataset, including 1,132 fairness and 1,473 non-fairness reviews. Leveraging the ground-truth dataset, we developed and evaluated a set of machine learning and deep learning models that distinguish fairness reviews from non-fairness reviews. Our experiments show that our best-performing model can detect fairness reviews with a precision of 94%. We then applied the best-performing model on approximately 9.5M reviews collected from 108 AI-based apps and identified around 92K fairness reviews. Next, applying the K-means clustering technique to the 92K fairness reviews, followed by manual analysis, led to the identification of six distinct types of fairness concerns (e.g., 'receiving different quality of features and services in different platforms and devices' and 'lack of transparency and fairness in dealing with user-generated content'). Finally, the manual analysis of 2,248 app owners' responses to the fairness reviews identified six root causes (e.g., 'copyright issues') that app owners report to justify fairness concerns.
Related papers
- FairLENS: Assessing Fairness in Law Enforcement Speech Recognition [37.75768315119143]
We propose a novel and adaptable evaluation method to examine the fairness disparity between different models.
We conducted fairness assessments on 1 open-source and 11 commercially available state-of-the-art ASR models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-21T19:23:40Z) - Fairness Evaluation for Uplift Modeling in the Absence of Ground Truth [2.946562343070891]
We propose a framework that overcomes the missing ground truth problem by generating surrogates.
We show how to apply the approach in a comprehensive study from a real-world marketing campaign.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-12T06:13:24Z) - Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer
Vision [51.176061115977774]
We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP)
We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy.
Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z) - A First Look at Fairness of Machine Learning Based Code Reviewer
Recommendation [14.50773969815661]
This paper conducts the first study toward investigating the issue of fairness of ML applications in the software engineering (SE) domain.
Our empirical study demonstrates that current state-of-the-art ML-based code reviewer recommendation techniques exhibit unfairness and discriminating behaviors.
This paper also discusses the reasons why the studied ML-based code reviewer recommendation systems are unfair and provides solutions to mitigate the unfairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-21T01:57:51Z) - Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age.
A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data.
In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z) - Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and
Metrics [80.07271410743806]
We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness.
We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks.
Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z) - DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual
Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations.
Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z) - Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks [5.076419064097733]
This work presents error parity as a regression fairness notion and introduces a testing methodology to assess group fairness.
It is followed by a suitable permutation test to compare groups on several statistics to explore disparities and identify impacted groups.
Overall, the proposed regression fairness testing methodology fills a gap in the fair machine learning literature and may serve as a part of larger accountability assessments and algorithm audits.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-16T17:47:20Z) - D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling
Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases.
A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network.
For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z) - Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system.
Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model.
We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z) - Metrics and methods for a systematic comparison of fairness-aware
machine learning algorithms [0.0]
This study is the most comprehensive of its kind.
It considers fairness, predictive-performance, calibration quality, and speed of 28 different modelling pipelines.
We also found that fairness-aware algorithms can induce fairness without material drops in predictive power.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-08T13:58:09Z)
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.