Discrimination, Bias, Fairness, and Trustworthy AI
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, we analyze “Discrimination”, ”Bias”, “Fairness”, and “Trustworthiness” as working variables in the context of the social impact of AI. It has been identified that there exists a set of specialized variables, such as security, privacy, responsibility, etc., that are used to operationalize the principles in the Principled AI International Framework. These variables are defined in such a way that they contribute to others of more general scope, for example, the ones studied in this study, in what appears to be a generalization–specialization relationship. Our aim in this study is to comprehend how we can use available notions of bias, discrimination, fairness, and other related variables that will be assured during the software project’s lifecycle (security, privacy, responsibility, etc.) when developing trustworthy algorithmic decision-making systems (ADMS). Bias, discrimination, and fairness are mainly approached with an operational interest by the Principled AI International Framework, so we included sources from outside the framework to complement (from a conceptual standpoint) their study and their relationship with each other.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
CulturePlex Laboratory, London, ON N6A 3K6, Canada
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. Engel, U., Quan-Haase, A., Xun Liu, S., and Lyberg, L.E. (2022). Analysis of the principled-AI framework’s constraints in becoming a methodological reference for trustworthy-AI design. Handbook of Computational Social Science, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
2. Varona, D., and Suarez, J.L. Principled AI Engineering Challenges Towards Trust-worthy AI. Ethics Inf. Technol., 2022. submitted.
3. Machine learning’s limitations in avoiding automation of bias10.1007/s00146-020-00996-y ↗
4. Trust me!: How to use trust-by-design to build resilient tech in times of crisis
5. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G.K., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., and Fong, R. (2020). Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv.
6. Wickramasinghe, C.S., Marino, D.L., Grandio, J., and Manic, M. (2020, January 6–8). Trustworthy AI Development Guidelines for Human System Interaction. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human System Interaction, Tokyo, Japan.10.1109/HSI49210.2020.9142644 ↗
7. Smith, C.J. (2020, January 7–12). Designing Trustworthy AI: A Human-Machine Teaming Framework to Guide Development. Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New York, NY, USA.
8. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 ↗
9. Verma, S., and Rubin, J. (2018, January 29). Fairness Definitions Explained. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare 2018), Gothenburg, Sweden.10.1145/3194770.3194776 ↗
10. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning
11. Zhang, L., Wu, Y., and Wu, X. (2017, January 19–25). A Causal Framework for Discovering and Removing Direct and Indirect Discrimination. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Melbourne, Australia.10.24963/ijcai.2017/549 ↗
12. Chen, J., Kallus, N., Mao, X., Svacha, G., and Udell, M. (2019, January 29–31). Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity when Protected Class is Unobserved. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1145/3287560.3287594 ↗
13. Jago, A.S., and Laurin, K. (2021). Assumptions about algorithms’ capacity for discrimination. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 1–14.10.1177/01461672211016187 ↗
14. Choosing how to discriminate: Navigating ethical trade-offs in fair algorithmic design for the insurance sector10.1007/s13347-021-00444-9 ↗
15. Schmidt, N., Siskin, B., and Mansur, S. (2018, January 19). How Data Scientists Help Regulators and Banks Ensure Fairness when Implementing Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Models. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA.
16. Martínez-Plumed, F., Ferri, C., and Nieve, D. (2019). Fairness and missing values. arXiv.
17. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments10.1089/big.2016.0047 ↗
18. Feldman, M., Friedler, S.A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C.E., and Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015, January 10–13). Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sidney, Australia.10.1145/2783258.2783311 ↗
19. Fish, B., Kun, J., and Lelkes, Á.D. (2016, January 5–7). A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy. Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Miami, FL, USA.10.1137/1.9781611974348.17 ↗
20. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning
21. Reich, C.L., and Vijaykumar, S. (2021, January 9–11). A Possibility in Algorithmic Fairness: Calibrated Scores for Fair Classifications. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021), Virtual Event. arXivLabs:2002.07676.
22. Pedreschi, D., Ruggieri, S., and Franco, T. (2007). Discrimination-Aware Data Mining Technical Report: TR-07-19, Dipartimento di Informatica, Universitµa di Pisa.
23. Big data’s disparate impact
24. Zafar, M.B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M.G., and Gummadi, K.P. (2015, January 9–12). Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), San Diego, CA, USA. arXiv:1507.05259.
25. Holstein, K., Vaughan, J.W., Daumé, H., Dudík, M., and Wallach, H.M. (2019, January 4–9). Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What do Industry Practitioners Need?. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK.10.1145/3290605.3300830 ↗
26. La responsabilidad ética del diseñador de sistemas en inteligencia artificial
27. Varona, D. (2020, January 1–5). AI systems are not racists just because. Proceedings of the T-13 hours: Building Community Online in CSDH/SCHN2020, Virtual Event.
28. Varona, D. (2021, July 01). (Western University, Canada). Artificial Intelligence Design Guiding Principles: Review of “European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Judicial Systems and Their Environment”. Available online: https://www.danielvarona.ca/2020/06/17/artificial-intelligence-design-guiding-principles-review-of-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-ai-in-judicial-systems-and-their-environment/.
29. Varona, D. (2021, July 01). (Western University, Canada). Artificial Intelligence Design Guiding Principles: Review of “Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence”. Available online: https://www.danielvarona.ca/2020/06/28/artificial-intelligence-design-guiding-principles-review-of-recommendation-of-the-council-on-artificial-intelligence/.
30. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., and Binns, R. (2018, January 21–27). Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/3173574.3174014 ↗
31. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., and Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.10.2139/ssrn.3518482 ↗
32. UNI Global Union (2017). The Future World of Work. Top 10 Principles for Ethical Artificial Intelligence, UNI Global Union.
33. Abrieu, R., Aneja, U., Chetty, K., Rapetti, M., and Uhlig, A. (2021, May 19). The Future of Work and Education for the Digital Age: Technological Innovation and the Future of Work: A View from the South. Technical Report. Argentina: G20. Available online: https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/GSx-TF-1-PB-Albrieu-et-al-final-2.pdf.
34. Access Now Organization (2021, May 19). Human Rights in the Age of AI. Technical Report. AccessNowOrg. Available online: https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/11/AI-and-Human-Rights.pdf.
35. The Public Voice Coalition (2018). Universal Guidelines for AI, The Public Voice Coalition.
36. House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (2021, May 19). AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? Technical Report. Authority of the House of Lords. Available online: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/100.pdf.
37. Martinho-Truswell, E., Miller, H., Nti Asare, I., Petheram, A., Stirling, R., Gomez Mont, C., and Martinez, C. (2018). Towards an AI strategy in Mexico: Harnessing the AI revolution. White Pap., 23.
38. IBM (2019). Everyday Ethics for AI, IBM.
39. Sommerville, I. (2016). Software Engineering, Pearson Education.
40. The Standish Group (2020). CHAOS Report 2020, The Standish Group.
41. Independent High Level Expert Group on AI (2019). AI Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, European Commission.
42. Smart Dubai Office (2019). AI Ethics, Principles and Guidelines, Smart Dubai Office.
43. Pressman, R. (2010). Software Engineering. A Practitioner’s Approach, McGrawHill Higher Education. [7th ed.].
44. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology (2016). Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence.
45. Demiaux, V., and Si, A.Y. (2017). How Can Humans Keep the Upper Hand? The Ethical Matters Raised by Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence, The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL).
46. Task Force 7 (2021, May 19). The Future of Work and Education for the Digital Age. Technical Report. T20. Available online: https://t20japan.org/task-forces/the-future-of-work-and-education-for-the-digital-age/.
47. Telefónica (2018). AI Principles of Telefónica, Telefónica.
48. Servizio Internet Vaticano (2020). Rome Call for AI Ethics, Servizio Internet Vaticano.
49. NITI Aayog (2018). National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence.
50. Trustworthy AI needs unbiased dictators!
51. Wing, J.M. (2020). Trustworthy AI. arXiv.