Fuck the Algorithm: Conceptual Issues in Algorithmic Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13509v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 19:17:00 GMT
• Title: Fuck the Algorithm: Conceptual Issues in Algorithmic Bias
• Authors: Catherine Stinson,
• Abstract summary: Algorithmic bias has been the subject of much recent controversy.<n>To clarify this claim we need to know what kind of thing 'algorithms themselves' are.<n>Data bias has been identified in domains like hiring, policing and medicine.
• Score: 0.05657375260432172
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic bias has been the subject of much recent controversy. To clarify what is at stake and to make progress resolving the controversy, a better understanding of the concepts involved would be helpful. The discussion here focuses on the disputed claim that algorithms themselves cannot be biased. To clarify this claim we need to know what kind of thing 'algorithms themselves' are, and to disambiguate the several meanings of 'bias' at play. This further involves showing how bias of moral import can result from statistical biases, and drawing connections to previous conceptual work about political artifacts and oppressive things. Data bias has been identified in domains like hiring, policing and medicine. Examples where algorithms themselves have been pinpointed as the locus of bias include recommender systems that influence media consumption, academic search engines that influence citation patterns, and the 2020 UK algorithmically-moderated A-level grades. Recognition that algorithms are a kind of thing that can be biased is key to making decisions about responsibility for harm, and preventing algorithmically mediated discrimination.

Related papers

• Algorithms, Incentives, and Democracy [0.0]
  We show how optimal classification by an algorithm designer can affect the distribution of behavior in a population. We then look at the effect of democratizing the rewards and punishments, or stakes, to the algorithmic classification to consider how a society can potentially stem (or facilitate!) predatory classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T14:22:01Z)
• Algorithmic neutrality [0.0]
  I investigate algorithmic neutrality, tackling three questions: What is algorithmic neutrality? Is it possible? And when we have it in mind, what can we learn about algorithmic bias?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-09T08:23:56Z)
• Whole Page Unbiased Learning to Rank [59.52040055543542]
  Unbiased Learning to Rank(ULTR) algorithms are proposed to learn an unbiased ranking model with biased click data. We propose a Bias Agnostic whole-page unbiased Learning to rank algorithm, named BAL, to automatically find the user behavior model. Experimental results on a real-world dataset verify the effectiveness of the BAL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T16:53:08Z)
• 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)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Choosing an algorithmic fairness metric for an online marketplace: Detecting and quantifying algorithmic bias on LinkedIn [0.21756081703275995]
  We derive an algorithmic fairness metric from the fairness notion of equal opportunity for equally qualified candidates. We use the proposed method to measure and quantify algorithmic bias with respect to gender of two algorithms used by LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T10:33:30Z)
• Anatomizing Bias in Facial Analysis [86.79402670904338]
  Existing facial analysis systems have been shown to yield biased results against certain demographic subgroups. It has become imperative to ensure that these systems do not discriminate based on gender, identity, or skin tone of individuals. This has led to research in the identification and mitigation of bias in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T09:51:13Z)
• Towards Measuring Bias in Image Classification [61.802949761385]
  Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have become state-of-the-art for the main computer vision tasks. However, due to the complex structure their decisions are hard to understand which limits their use in some context of the industrial world. We present a systematic approach to uncover data bias by means of attribution maps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-01T10:50:39Z)
• Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do? [15.525314212209564]
  This paper postulates that the root causes of bias are the prior decisions that affect- (a) what data was selected and (b) the labels assigned to those examples. Our Fair-SMOTE algorithm removes biased labels; and rebalances internal distributions such that based on sensitive attribute, examples are equal in both positive and negative classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T20:15:50Z)
• Algorithms are not neutral: Bias in collaborative filtering [0.0]
  Discussions of algorithmic bias tend to focus on examples where either the data or the people building the algorithms are biased. This is illustrated with the example of collaborative filtering, which is known to suffer from popularity, and homogenizing biases. Popularity and homogenizing biases have the effect of further marginalizing the already marginal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T17:28:43Z)
• Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms [54.19499274513654]
  We develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic transects'' of matched sample images. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T17:10:34Z)
• Underestimation Bias and Underfitting in Machine Learning [2.639737913330821]
  What is termed algorithmic bias in machine learning will be due to historic bias in the training data. Sometimes the bias may be introduced (or at least exacerbated) by the algorithm itself. In this paper we report on initial research to understand the factors that contribute to bias in classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-18T20:01:56Z)

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.