Perceived Fairness of the Machine Learning Development Process: Concept Scale Development

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13421v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 06:51:31 GMT
• Title: Perceived Fairness of the Machine Learning Development Process: Concept Scale Development
• Authors: Anoop Mishra, Deepak Khazanchi,
• Abstract summary: unfairness is triggered due to bias in the data, the data curation process, erroneous assumptions, and implicit bias rendered during the development process. We propose operational attributes of perceived fairness to be transparency, accountability, and representativeness. The multidimensional framework for perceived fairness offers a comprehensive understanding of perceived fairness.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: In machine learning (ML) applications, unfairness is triggered due to bias in the data, the data curation process, erroneous assumptions, and implicit bias rendered during the development process. It is also well-accepted by researchers that fairness in ML application development is highly subjective, with a lack of clarity of what it means from an ML development and implementation perspective. Thus, in this research, we investigate and formalize the notion of the perceived fairness of ML development from a sociotechnical lens. Our goal in this research is to understand the characteristics of perceived fairness in ML applications. We address this research goal using a three-pronged strategy: 1) conducting virtual focus groups with ML developers, 2) reviewing existing literature on fairness in ML, and 3) incorporating aspects of justice theory relating to procedural and distributive justice. Based on our theoretical exposition, we propose operational attributes of perceived fairness to be transparency, accountability, and representativeness. These are described in terms of multiple concepts that comprise each dimension of perceived fairness. We use this operationalization to empirically validate the notion of perceived fairness of machine learning (ML) applications from both the ML practioners and users perspectives. The multidimensional framework for perceived fairness offers a comprehensive understanding of perceived fairness, which can guide the creation of fair ML systems with positive implications for society and businesses.

Related papers

• Analyzing Fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing Models [1.0923877073891446]
  Machine learning (ML) algorithms play a crucial role in decision making across diverse fields such as healthcare, finance, education, and law enforcement. Despite their widespread adoption, these systems raise ethical and social concerns due to potential biases and fairness issues. This study focuses on evaluating and improving the fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing (NLP) models applied to unstructured datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T06:35:55Z)
• 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)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• AesBench: An Expert Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models on Image Aesthetics Perception [64.25808552299905]
  AesBench is an expert benchmark aiming to comprehensively evaluate the aesthetic perception capacities of MLLMs. We construct an Expert-labeled Aesthetics Perception Database (EAPD), which features diversified image contents and high-quality annotations provided by professional aesthetic experts. We propose a set of integrative criteria to measure the aesthetic perception abilities of MLLMs from four perspectives, including Perception (AesP), Empathy (AesE), Assessment (AesA) and Interpretation (AesI)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T10:58:07Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Assessing Perceived Fairness from Machine Learning Developer's Perspective [0.0]
  unfairness is triggered due to bias in the data, curation process, erroneous assumptions, and implicit bias rendered within the algorithmic development process. In particular, ML developers have not been the focus of research relating to perceived fairness. This paper performs an exploratory pilot study to assess the attributes of this construct using a systematic focus group of developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T17:30:37Z)
• Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review [90.22219142430146]
  We analyze the intersection of fairness in machine learning and healthcare disparities. We provide a critical review of the associated fairness metrics from a machine learning standpoint. We propose several new research directions that hold promise for developing ethical and equitable ML applications in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-29T04:32:10Z)
• What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds [8.223468651994352]
  A growing body of literature in fairness-aware machine learning (fairML) aims to mitigate machine learning (ML)-related unfairness in automated decision-making (ADM) However, the underlying concept of fairness is rarely discussed, leaving a significant gap between centuries of philosophical discussion and the recent adoption of the concept in the ML community. We try to bridge this gap by formalizing a consistent concept of fairness and by translating the philosophical considerations into a formal framework for the training and evaluation of ML models in ADM systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T15:37:26Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Machine learning fairness notions: Bridging the gap with real-world applications [4.157415305926584]
  Fairness emerged as an important requirement to guarantee that Machine Learning predictive systems do not discriminate against specific individuals or entire sub-populations. This paper is a survey that illustrates the subtleties between fairness notions through a large number of examples and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-30T13:01:06Z)
• Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Data [47.6390279192406]
  Individual fairness is an intuitive definition of algorithmic fairness that addresses some of the drawbacks of group fairness. The lack of a widely accepted fair metric for many ML tasks is the main barrier to broader adoption of individual fairness. We show empirically that fair training with the learned metrics leads to improved fairness on three machine learning tasks susceptible to gender and racial biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T23:47:15Z)

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.