-
OxonFair: A Flexible Toolkit for Algorithmic Fairness
Authors:
Eoin Delaney,
Zihao Fu,
Sandra Wachter,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Chris Russell
Abstract:
We present OxonFair, a new open source toolkit for enforcing fairness in binary classification. Compared to existing toolkits: (i) We support NLP and Computer Vision classification as well as standard tabular problems. (ii) We support enforcing fairness on validation data, making us robust to a wide range of overfitting challenges. (iii) Our approach can optimize any measure based on True Positive…
▽ More
We present OxonFair, a new open source toolkit for enforcing fairness in binary classification. Compared to existing toolkits: (i) We support NLP and Computer Vision classification as well as standard tabular problems. (ii) We support enforcing fairness on validation data, making us robust to a wide range of overfitting challenges. (iii) Our approach can optimize any measure based on True Positives, False Positive, False Negatives, and True Negatives. This makes it easily extendable and much more expressive than existing toolkits. It supports 9/9 and 10/10 of the decision-based group metrics of two popular review papers. (iv) We jointly optimize a performance objective. This not only minimizes degradation while enforcing fairness, but can improve the performance of otherwise inadequately tuned unfair baselines. OxonFair is compatible with standard ML toolkits including sklearn, Autogluon, and PyTorch and is available online at https://github.com/oxfordinternetinstitute/oxonfair
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Generative Discrimination: What Happens When Generative AI Exhibits Bias, and What Can Be Done About It
Authors:
Philipp Hacker,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius,
Sandra Wachter
Abstract:
As generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) technologies proliferate across sectors, they offer significant benefits but also risk exacerbating discrimination. This chapter explores how genAI intersects with non-discrimination laws, identifying shortcomings and suggesting improvements. It highlights two main types of discriminatory outputs: (i) demeaning and abusive content and (ii) subtler bias…
▽ More
As generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) technologies proliferate across sectors, they offer significant benefits but also risk exacerbating discrimination. This chapter explores how genAI intersects with non-discrimination laws, identifying shortcomings and suggesting improvements. It highlights two main types of discriminatory outputs: (i) demeaning and abusive content and (ii) subtler biases due to inadequate representation of protected groups, which may not be overtly discriminatory in individual cases but have cumulative discriminatory effects. For example, genAI systems may predominantly depict white men when asked for images of people in important jobs.
This chapter examines these issues, categorizing problematic outputs into three legal categories: discriminatory content; harassment; and legally hard cases like unbalanced content, harmful stereotypes or misclassification. It argues for holding genAI providers and deployers liable for discriminatory outputs and highlights the inadequacy of traditional legal frameworks to address genAI-specific issues. The chapter suggests updating EU laws, including the AI Act, to mitigate biases in training and input data, mandating testing and auditing, and evolving legislation to enforce standards for bias mitigation and inclusivity as technology advances.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Resource-constrained Fairness
Authors:
Sofie Goethals,
Eoin Delaney,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Chris Russell
Abstract:
Access to resources strongly constrains the decisions we make. While we might wish to offer every student a scholarship, or schedule every patient for follow-up meetings with a specialist, limited resources mean that this is not possible. When deploying machine learning systems, these resource constraints are simply enforced by varying the threshold of a classifier. However, these finite resource…
▽ More
Access to resources strongly constrains the decisions we make. While we might wish to offer every student a scholarship, or schedule every patient for follow-up meetings with a specialist, limited resources mean that this is not possible. When deploying machine learning systems, these resource constraints are simply enforced by varying the threshold of a classifier. However, these finite resource limitations are disregarded by most existing tools for fair machine learning, which do not allow the specification of resource limitations and do not remain fair when varying thresholds. This makes them ill-suited for real-world deployment. Our research introduces the concept of "resource-constrained fairness" and quantifies the cost of fairness within this framework. We demonstrate that the level of available resources significantly influences this cost, a factor overlooked in previous evaluations.
△ Less
Submitted 21 August, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Legitimate Power, Illegitimate Automation: The problem of ignoring legitimacy in automated decision systems
Authors:
Jake Stone,
Brent Mittelstadt
Abstract:
Progress in machine learning and artificial intelligence has spurred the widespread adoption of automated decision systems (ADS). An extensive literature explores what conditions must be met for these systems' decisions to be fair. However, questions of legitimacy -- why those in control of ADS are entitled to make such decisions -- have received comparatively little attention. This paper shows th…
▽ More
Progress in machine learning and artificial intelligence has spurred the widespread adoption of automated decision systems (ADS). An extensive literature explores what conditions must be met for these systems' decisions to be fair. However, questions of legitimacy -- why those in control of ADS are entitled to make such decisions -- have received comparatively little attention. This paper shows that when such questions are raised theorists often incorrectly conflate legitimacy with either public acceptance or other substantive values such as fairness, accuracy, expertise or efficiency. In search of better theories, we conduct a critical analysis of the philosophical literature on the legitimacy of the state, focusing on consent, public reason, and democratic authorisation. This analysis reveals that the prevailing understanding of legitimacy in analytical political philosophy is also ill-suited to the task of establishing whether and when ADS are legitimate. The paper thus clarifies expectations for theories of ADS legitimacy and charts a path for a future research programme on the topic.
△ Less
Submitted 24 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
The ethical ambiguity of AI data enrichment: Measuring gaps in research ethics norms and practices
Authors:
Will Hawkins,
Brent Mittelstadt
Abstract:
The technical progression of artificial intelligence (AI) research has been built on breakthroughs in fields such as computer science, statistics, and mathematics. However, in the past decade AI researchers have increasingly looked to the social sciences, turning to human interactions to solve the challenges of model development. Paying crowdsourcing workers to generate or curate data, or data enr…
▽ More
The technical progression of artificial intelligence (AI) research has been built on breakthroughs in fields such as computer science, statistics, and mathematics. However, in the past decade AI researchers have increasingly looked to the social sciences, turning to human interactions to solve the challenges of model development. Paying crowdsourcing workers to generate or curate data, or data enrichment, has become indispensable for many areas of AI research, from natural language processing to reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Other fields that routinely interact with crowdsourcing workers, such as Psychology, have developed common governance requirements and norms to ensure research is undertaken ethically. This study explores how, and to what extent, comparable research ethics requirements and norms have developed for AI research and data enrichment. We focus on the approach taken by two leading conferences: ICLR and NeurIPS, and journal publisher Springer. In a longitudinal study of accepted papers, and via a comparison with Psychology and CHI papers, this work finds that leading AI venues have begun to establish protocols for human data collection, but these are are inconsistently followed by authors. Whilst Psychology papers engaging with crowdsourcing workers frequently disclose ethics reviews, payment data, demographic data and other information, similar disclosures are far less common in leading AI venues despite similar guidance. The work concludes with hypotheses to explain these gaps in research ethics practices and considerations for its implications.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by default
Authors:
Brent Mittelstadt,
Sandra Wachter,
Chris Russell
Abstract:
In recent years fairness in machine learning (ML) has emerged as a highly active area of research and development. Most define fairness in simple terms, where fairness means reducing gaps in performance or outcomes between demographic groups while preserving as much of the accuracy of the original system as possible. This oversimplification of equality through fairness measures is troubling. Many…
▽ More
In recent years fairness in machine learning (ML) has emerged as a highly active area of research and development. Most define fairness in simple terms, where fairness means reducing gaps in performance or outcomes between demographic groups while preserving as much of the accuracy of the original system as possible. This oversimplification of equality through fairness measures is troubling. Many current fairness measures suffer from both fairness and performance degradation, or "levelling down," where fairness is achieved by making every group worse off, or by bringing better performing groups down to the level of the worst off. When fairness can only be achieved by making everyone worse off in material or relational terms through injuries of stigma, loss of solidarity, unequal concern, and missed opportunities for substantive equality, something would appear to have gone wrong in translating the vague concept of 'fairness' into practice. This paper examines the causes and prevalence of levelling down across fairML, and explore possible justifications and criticisms based on philosophical and legal theories of equality and distributive justice, as well as equality law jurisprudence. We find that fairML does not currently engage in the type of measurement, reporting, or analysis necessary to justify levelling down in practice. We propose a first step towards substantive equality in fairML: "levelling up" systems by design through enforcement of minimum acceptable harm thresholds, or "minimum rate constraints," as fairness constraints. We likewise propose an alternative harms-based framework to counter the oversimplified egalitarian framing currently dominant in the field and push future discussion more towards substantive equality opportunities and away from strict egalitarianism by default. N.B. Shortened abstract, see paper for full abstract.
△ Less
Submitted 12 March, 2023; v1 submitted 5 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
The Impact of Explanations on Layperson Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Driven Symptom Checker Apps: Experimental Study
Authors:
Claire Woodcock,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Dan Busbridge,
Grant Blank
Abstract:
To achieve the promoted benefits of an AI symptom checker, laypeople must trust and subsequently follow its instructions. In AI, explanations are seen as a tool to communicate the rationale behind black-box decisions to encourage trust and adoption. However, the effectiveness of the types of explanations used in AI-driven symptom checkers has not yet been studied. Social theories suggest that why-…
▽ More
To achieve the promoted benefits of an AI symptom checker, laypeople must trust and subsequently follow its instructions. In AI, explanations are seen as a tool to communicate the rationale behind black-box decisions to encourage trust and adoption. However, the effectiveness of the types of explanations used in AI-driven symptom checkers has not yet been studied. Social theories suggest that why-explanations are better at communicating knowledge and cultivating trust among laypeople. This study ascertains whether explanations provided by a symptom checker affect explanatory trust among laypeople (N=750) and whether this trust is impacted by their existing knowledge of disease.
Results suggest system builders developing explanations for symptom-checking apps should consider the recipient's knowledge of a disease and tailor explanations to each user's specific need. Effort should be placed on generating explanations that are personalized to each user of a symptom checker to fully discount the diseases that they may be aware of and to close their information gap.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI
Authors:
Sandra Wachter,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Chris Russell
Abstract:
This article identifies a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing statistical measures of fairness. First, we review the evidential requirements to bring a claim under EU non-discrimination law. Due to the disparate nature of algorithmic and human discrimination, the EU's current requirements are too contextual, reliant on intuition, and open to judicial in…
▽ More
This article identifies a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing statistical measures of fairness. First, we review the evidential requirements to bring a claim under EU non-discrimination law. Due to the disparate nature of algorithmic and human discrimination, the EU's current requirements are too contextual, reliant on intuition, and open to judicial interpretation to be automated. Second, we show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. Humans discriminate due to negative attitudes (e.g. stereotypes, prejudice) and unintentional biases (e.g. organisational practices or internalised stereotypes) which can act as a signal to victims that discrimination has occurred. Finally, we examine how existing work on fairness in machine learning lines up with procedures for assessing cases under EU non-discrimination law. We propose "conditional demographic disparity" (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement that aligns with the European Court of Justice's "gold standard." Establishing a standard set of statistical evidence for automated discrimination cases can help ensure consistent procedures for assessment, but not judicial interpretation, of cases involving AI and automated systems. Through this proposal for procedural regularity in the identification and assessment of automated discrimination, we clarify how to build considerations of fairness into automated systems as far as possible while still respecting and enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination law.
N.B. Abridged abstract
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Authors:
Brent Mittelstadt
Abstract:
AI Ethics is now a global topic of discussion in academic and policy circles. At least 84 public-private initiatives have produced statements describing high-level principles, values, and other tenets to guide the ethical development, deployment, and governance of AI. According to recent meta-analyses, AI Ethics has seemingly converged on a set of principles that closely resemble the four classic…
▽ More
AI Ethics is now a global topic of discussion in academic and policy circles. At least 84 public-private initiatives have produced statements describing high-level principles, values, and other tenets to guide the ethical development, deployment, and governance of AI. According to recent meta-analyses, AI Ethics has seemingly converged on a set of principles that closely resemble the four classic principles of medical ethics. Despite the initial credibility granted to a principled approach to AI Ethics by the connection to principles in medical ethics, there are reasons to be concerned about its future impact on AI development and governance. Significant differences exist between medicine and AI development that suggest a principled approach in the latter may not enjoy success comparable to the former. Compared to medicine, AI development lacks (1) common aims and fiduciary duties, (2) professional history and norms, (3) proven methods to translate principles into practice, and (4) robust legal and professional accountability mechanisms. These differences suggest we should not yet celebrate consensus around high-level principles that hide deep political and normative disagreement.
△ Less
Submitted 18 February, 2020; v1 submitted 16 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Explaining Explanations in AI
Authors:
Brent Mittelstadt,
Chris Russell,
Sandra Wachter
Abstract:
Recent work on interpretability in machine learning and AI has focused on the building of simplified models that approximate the true criteria used to make decisions. These models are a useful pedagogical device for teaching trained professionals how to predict what decisions will be made by the complex system, and most importantly how the system might break. However, when considering any such mod…
▽ More
Recent work on interpretability in machine learning and AI has focused on the building of simplified models that approximate the true criteria used to make decisions. These models are a useful pedagogical device for teaching trained professionals how to predict what decisions will be made by the complex system, and most importantly how the system might break. However, when considering any such model it's important to remember Box's maxim that "All models are wrong but some are useful." We focus on the distinction between these models and explanations in philosophy and sociology. These models can be understood as a "do it yourself kit" for explanations, allowing a practitioner to directly answer "what if questions" or generate contrastive explanations without external assistance. Although a valuable ability, giving these models as explanations appears more difficult than necessary, and other forms of explanation may not have the same trade-offs. We contrast the different schools of thought on what makes an explanation, and suggest that machine learning might benefit from viewing the problem more broadly.
△ Less
Submitted 4 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
-
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
Authors:
Sandra Wachter,
Brent Mittelstadt,
Chris Russell
Abstract:
There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases i…
▽ More
There has been much discussion of the right to explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and its existence, merits, and disadvantages. Implementing a right to explanation that opens the black box of algorithmic decision-making faces major legal and technical barriers. Explaining the functionality of complex algorithmic decision-making systems and their rationale in specific cases is a technically challenging problem. Some explanations may offer little meaningful information to data subjects, raising questions around their value. Explanations of automated decisions need not hinge on the general public understanding how algorithmic systems function. Even though such interpretability is of great importance and should be pursued, explanations can, in principle, be offered without opening the black box. Looking at explanations as a means to help a data subject act rather than merely understand, one could gauge the scope and content of explanations according to the specific goal or action they are intended to support. From the perspective of individuals affected by automated decision-making, we propose three aims for explanations: (1) to inform and help the individual understand why a particular decision was reached, (2) to provide grounds to contest the decision if the outcome is undesired, and (3) to understand what would need to change in order to receive a desired result in the future, based on the current decision-making model. We assess how each of these goals finds support in the GDPR. We suggest data controllers should offer a particular type of explanation, unconditional counterfactual explanations, to support these three aims. These counterfactual explanations describe the smallest change to the world that can be made to obtain a desirable outcome, or to arrive at the closest possible world, without needing to explain the internal logic of the system.
△ Less
Submitted 21 March, 2018; v1 submitted 1 November, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
