AI Biases as Asymmetries: A Review to Guide Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07326v1
• Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:40:28 GMT
• Title: AI Biases as Asymmetries: A Review to Guide Practice
• Authors: Gabriella Waters, Phillip Honenberger,
• Abstract summary: biases are increasingly recognized as integral to AI systems and sometimes preferable to less biased alternatives.<n>We identify three main types of asymmetry in AI systems-error biases, inequality biases, and process biases.<n>We highlight places in the pipeline of AI development and application where bias of each type is likely to be good, bad, or inevitable.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The understanding of bias in AI is currently undergoing a revolution. Initially understood as errors or flaws, biases are increasingly recognized as integral to AI systems and sometimes preferable to less biased alternatives. In this paper, we review the reasons for this changed understanding and provide new guidance on two questions: First, how should we think about and measure biases in AI systems, consistent with the new understanding? Second, what kinds of bias in an AI system should we accept or even amplify, and what kinds should we minimize or eliminate, and why? The key to answering both questions, we argue, is to understand biases as "violations of a symmetry standard" (following Kelly). We distinguish three main types of asymmetry in AI systems-error biases, inequality biases, and process biases-and highlight places in the pipeline of AI development and application where bias of each type is likely to be good, bad, or inevitable.

Related papers

• What should an AI assessor optimise for? [57.96463917842822]
  An AI assessor is an external, ideally indepen-dent system that predicts an indicator, e.g., a loss value, of another AI system. Here we address the question: is it always optimal to train the assessor for the target metric? We experimentally explore this question for, respectively, regression losses and classification scores with monotonic and non-monotonic mappings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T08:41:57Z)
• Fantastic Biases (What are They) and Where to Find Them [0.0]
  We try to define what is a bias in general terms. We focus over the notion of what is generally seen as negative bias, the one we want to avoid in machine learning. We conclude by looking at classical methods to detect them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T16:38:03Z)
• The Technology of Outrage: Bias in Artificial Intelligence [1.2289361708127877]
  Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used to offload decision making from people. In the past, one of the rationales for this replacement was that machines, unlike people, can be fair and unbiased. We identify three forms of outrage-intellectual, moral, and political-that are at play when people react emotionally to algorithmic bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T20:23:25Z)
• Measuring and Addressing Indexical Bias in Information Retrieval [69.7897730778898]
  PAIR framework supports automatic bias audits for ranked documents or entire IR systems. After introducing DUO, we run an extensive evaluation of 8 IR systems on a new corpus of 32k synthetic and 4.7k natural documents. A human behavioral study validates our approach, showing that our bias metric can help predict when and how indexical bias will shift a reader's opinion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:42:37Z)
• AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey [70.35693485015659]
  AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. We identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality. We decompose current alignment research into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:52:15Z)
• Mitigating Bias for Question Answering Models by Tracking Bias Influence [84.66462028537475]
  We propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T00:49:09Z)
• 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)
• A Seven-Layer Model for Standardising AI Fairness Assessment [0.5076419064097732]
  We elaborate that the AI system is prone to biases at every stage of its lifecycle, from inception to its usage. We propose a novel seven-layer model, inspired by the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model, to standardise AI fairness handling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T17:28:07Z)
• Alterfactual Explanations -- The Relevance of Irrelevance for Explaining AI Systems [0.9542023122304099]
  We argue that in order to fully understand a decision, not only knowledge about relevant features is needed, but that the awareness of irrelevant information also highly contributes to the creation of a user's mental model of an AI system. Our approach, which we call Alterfactual Explanations, is based on showing an alternative reality where irrelevant features of an AI's input are altered. We show that alterfactual explanations are suited to convey an understanding of different aspects of the AI's reasoning than established counterfactual explanation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-19T16:20:37Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Simon Says: Evaluating and Mitigating Bias in Pruned Neural Networks with Knowledge Distillation [8.238238958749134]
  A clear gap exists in the current literature on evaluating and mitigating bias in pruned neural networks. We propose two simple yet effective metrics, Combined Error Variance (CEV) and Symmetric Distance Error (SDE) to quantitatively evaluate the induced bias prevention quality. Second, we demonstrate that knowledge distillation can mitigate induced bias in pruned neural networks, even with unbalanced datasets. Third, we reveal that model similarity has strong correlations with pruning induced bias, which provides a powerful method to explain why bias occurs in pruned neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T02:59:32Z)
• Evading the Simplicity Bias: Training a Diverse Set of Models Discovers Solutions with Superior OOD Generalization [93.8373619657239]
  Neural networks trained with SGD were recently shown to rely preferentially on linearly-predictive features. This simplicity bias can explain their lack of robustness out of distribution (OOD) We demonstrate that the simplicity bias can be mitigated and OOD generalization improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-12T12:12:24Z)

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.