Research Papers

Although standard Machine Learning models are optimized for making predictions about observations, more and more they are used for making predictions about the results of actions. An important goal of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to compensate for this mismatch by offering explanations about the predictions of an ML-model which ensure that they are reliably action-guiding. As action-guiding explanations are causal explanations, the literature on this topic is starting to embrace insights from the literature on causal models. Here I take a step further down this path by formally defining the causal notions of sufficient explanations and counterfactual explanations. I show how these notions relate to (and improve upon) existing work, and motivate their adequacy by illustrating how different explanations are action-guiding under different circumstances. Moreover, this work is the first to offer a formal definition of actual causation that is founded entirely in action-guiding explanations. Although the definitions are motivated by a focus on XAI, the analysis of causal explanation and actual causation applies in general. I also touch upon the significance of this work for fairness in AI by showing how actual causation can be used to improve the idea of path-specific counterfactual fairness.

To date, there has been little concrete practical advice about how to ensure that diversity and inclusion considerations should be embedded within both specific Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and the larger global AI ecosystem. In this chapter, we present a clear definition of diversity and inclusion in AI, one which positions this concept within an evolving and holistic ecosystem. We use this definition and conceptual framing to present a set of practical guidelines primarily aimed at AI technologists, data scientists and project leaders.

Computer scientists are trained to create abstractions that simplify and generalize. However, a premature abstraction that omits crucial contextual details creates the risk of epistemic trespassing, by falsely asserting its relevance into other contexts. We study how the field of responsible AI has created an imperfect synecdoche by abstracting the four-fifths rule (a.k.a. the 4/5 rule or 80% rule), a single part of disparate impact discrimination law, into the disparate impact metric. This metric incorrectly introduces a new deontic nuance and new potentials for ethical harms that were absent in the original 4/5 rule. We also survey how the field has amplified the potential for harm in codifying the 4/5 rule into popular AI fairness software toolkits. The harmful erasure of legal nuances is a wake-up call for computer scientists to self-critically re-evaluate the abstractions they create and use, particularly in the interdisciplinary field of AI ethics.

In a world of daily emerging scientific inquisition and discovery, the prolific launch of machine learning across industries comes to little surprise for those familiar with the potential of ML. Neither so should the congruent expansion of ethics-focused research that emerged as a response to issues of bias and unfairness that stemmed from those very same applications. Fairness research, which focuses on techniques to combat algorithmic bias, is now more supported than ever before. A large portion of fairness research has gone to producing tools that machine learning practitioners can use to audit for bias while designing their algorithms. Nonetheless, there is a lack of application of these fairness solutions in practice. This systematic review provides an in-depth summary of the algorithmic bias issues that have been defined and the fairness solution space that has been proposed. Moreover, this review provides an in-depth breakdown of the caveats to the solution space that have arisen since their release and a taxonomy of needs that have been proposed by machine learning practitioners, fairness researchers, and institutional stakeholders. These needs have been organized and addressed to the parties most influential to their implementation, which includes fairness researchers, organizations that produce ML algorithms, and the machine learning practitioners themselves. These findings can be used in the future to bridge the gap between practitioners and fairness experts and inform the creation of usable fair ML toolkits.

The State of Multilingual LLM Safety Research: From Measuring the Language Gap to Mitigating It

Zheng-Xin Yong, Beyza Ermis, Marzieh Fadaee +2

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the linguistic diversity of LLM safety research, highlighting the English-centric nature of the field. Through a systematic review of nearly 300 publications from 2020--2024 across major NLP conferences and workshops at *ACL, we identify a significant and growing language gap in LLM safety research, with even high-resource non-English languages receiving minimal attention. We further observe that non-English languages are rarely studied as a standalone language and that English safety research exhibits poor language documentation practice. To motivate future research into multilingual safety, we make several recommendations based on our survey, and we then pose three concrete future directions on safety evaluation, training data generation, and crosslingual safety generalization. Based on our survey and proposed directions, the field can develop more robust, inclusive AI safety practices for diverse global populations.

Research and activism have increasingly denounced the problematic environmental record of the infrastructure and value chain underpinning Artificial Intelligence (AI). Water-intensive data centres, polluting mineral extraction and e-waste dumping are incontrovertibly part of AI's footprint. In this article, I turn to areas affected by AI-fuelled environmental harm and identify an ethics of resistance emerging from local activists, which I term 'elemental ethics'. Elemental ethics interrogates the AI value chain's problematic relationship with the elements that make up the world, critiques the undermining of local and ancestral approaches to nature and reveals the vital and quotidian harms engendered by so-called intelligent systems. While this ethics is emerging from grassroots and Indigenous groups, it echoes recent calls from environmental philosophy to reconnect with the environment via the elements. In empirical terms, this article looks at groups in Chile resisting a Google data centre project in Santiago and lithium extraction (used for rechargeable batteries) in Lickan Antay Indigenous territory, Atacama Desert. As I show, elemental ethics can complement top-down, utilitarian and quantitative approaches to AI ethics and sustainable AI as well as interrogate whose lived experience and well-being counts in debates on AI extinction.

Explainable Fairness in Recommendation

Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, Yan Zhu +7

Existing research on fairness-aware recommendation has mainly focused on the quantification of fairness and the development of fair recommendation models, neither of which studies a more substantial problem--identifying the underlying reason of model disparity in recommendation. This information is critical for recommender system designers to understand the intrinsic recommendation mechanism and provides insights on how to improve model fairness to decision makers. Fortunately, with the rapid development of Explainable AI, we can use model explainability to gain insights into model (un)fairness. In this paper, we study the problem of explainable fairness, which helps to gain insights about why a system is fair or unfair, and guides the design of fair recommender systems with a more informed and unified methodology. Particularly, we focus on a common setting with feature-aware recommendation and exposure unfairness, but the proposed explainable fairness framework is general and can be applied to other recommendation settings and fairness definitions. We propose a Counterfactual Explainable Fairness framework, called CEF, which generates explanations about model fairness that can improve the fairness without significantly hurting the performance.The CEF framework formulates an optimization problem to learn the "minimal" change of the input features that changes the recommendation results to a certain level of fairness. Based on the counterfactual recommendation result of each feature, we calculate an explainability score in terms of the fairness-utility trade-off to rank all the feature-based explanations, and select the top ones as fairness explanations.

Colleges and universities are increasingly turning to algorithms that predict college-student success to inform various decisions, including those related to admissions, budgeting, and student-success interventions. Because predictive algorithms rely on historical data, they capture societal injustices, including racism. In this study, we examine how the accuracy of college student success predictions differs between racialized groups, signaling algorithmic bias. We also evaluate the utility of leading bias-mitigating techniques in addressing this bias. Using nationally representative data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 and various machine learning modeling approaches, we demonstrate how models incorporating commonly used features to predict college-student success are less accurate when predicting success for racially minoritized students. Common approaches to mitigating algorithmic bias are generally ineffective at eliminating disparities in prediction outcomes and accuracy between racialized groups.

A Human Rights-Based Approach to Responsible AI

Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru +1

Research on fairness, accountability, transparency and ethics of AI-based interventions in society has gained much-needed momentum in recent years. However it lacks an explicit alignment with a set of normative values and principles that guide this research and interventions. Rather, an implicit consensus is often assumed to hold for the values we impart into our models - something that is at odds with the pluralistic world we live in. In this paper, we put forth the doctrine of universal human rights as a set of globally salient and cross-culturally recognized set of values that can serve as a grounding framework for explicit value alignment in responsible AI - and discuss its efficacy as a framework for civil society partnership and participation. We argue that a human rights framework orients the research in this space away from the machines and the risks of their biases, and towards humans and the risks to their rights, essentially helping to center the conversation around who is harmed, what harms they face, and how those harms may be mitigated.

Racial disparity in academia is a widely acknowledged problem. The quantitative understanding of racial based systemic inequalities is an important step towards a more equitable research system. However, because of the lack of robust information on authors' race, few large scale analyses have been performed on this topic. Algorithmic approaches offer one solution, using known information about authors, such as their names, to infer their perceived race. As with any other algorithm, the process of racial inference can generate biases if it is not carefully considered. The goal of this article is to assess the extent to which algorithmic bias is introduced using different approaches for name based racial inference. We use information from the U.S. Census and mortgage applications to infer the race of U.S. affiliated authors in the Web of Science. We estimate the effects of using given and family names, thresholds or continuous distributions, and imputation. Our results demonstrate that the validity of name based inference varies by race/ethnicity and that threshold approaches underestimate Black authors and overestimate White authors. We conclude with recommendations to avoid potential biases. This article lays the foundation for more systematic and less biased investigations into racial disparities in science.

Recommender Systems for Sustainability: Overview and Research Issues

Alexander Felfernig, Manfred Wundara, Thi Ngoc Trang Tran +5

Sustainability development goals (SDGs) are regarded as a universal call to action with the overall objectives of planet protection, ending of poverty, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all people. In order to achieve these objectives, different AI technologies play a major role. Specifically, recommender systems can provide support for organizations and individuals to achieve the defined goals. Recommender systems integrate AI technologies such as machine learning, explainable AI (XAI), case-based reasoning, and constraint solving in order to find and explain user-relevant alternatives from a potentially large set of options. In this article, we summarize the state of the art in applying recommender systems to support the achievement of sustainability development goals. In this context, we discuss open issues for future research.

With the powerful performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) also comes prevalent ethical issues. Though governments and corporations have curated multiple AI ethics guidelines to curb unethical behavior of AI, the effect has been limited, probably due to the vagueness of the guidelines. In this paper, we take a closer look at how AI ethics issues take place in real world, in order to have a more in-depth and nuanced understanding of different ethical issues as well as their social impact. With a content analysis of AI Incident Database, which is an effort to prevent repeated real world AI failures by cataloging incidents, we identified 13 application areas which often see unethical use of AI, with intelligent service robots, language/vision models and autonomous driving taking the lead. Ethical issues appear in 8 different forms, from inappropriate use and racial discrimination, to physical safety and unfair algorithm. With this taxonomy of AI ethics issues, we aim to provide AI practitioners with a practical guideline when trying to deploy AI applications ethically.