Research Papers

Systems incorporating biometric technologies have become ubiquitous in personal, commercial, and governmental identity management applications. Both cooperative (e.g. access control) and non-cooperative (e.g. surveillance and forensics) systems have benefited from biometrics. Such systems rely on the uniqueness of certain biological or behavioural characteristics of human beings, which enable for individuals to be reliably recognised using automated algorithms. Recently, however, there has been a wave of public and academic concerns regarding the existence of systemic bias in automated decision systems (including biometrics). Most prominently, face recognition algorithms have often been labelled as "racist" or "biased" by the media, non-governmental organisations, and researchers alike. The main contributions of this article are: (1) an overview of the topic of algorithmic bias in the context of biometrics, (2) a comprehensive survey of the existing literature on biometric bias estimation and mitigation, (3) a discussion of the pertinent technical and social matters, and (4) an outline of the remaining challenges and future work items, both from technological and social points of view.

Explaining AI systems is fundamental both to the development of high performing models and to the trust placed in them by their users. The Shapley framework for explainability has strength in its general applicability combined with its precise, rigorous foundation: it provides a common, model-agnostic language for AI explainability and uniquely satisfies a set of intuitive mathematical axioms. However, Shapley values are too restrictive in one significant regard: they ignore all causal structure in the data. We introduce a less restrictive framework, Asymmetric Shapley values (ASVs), which are rigorously founded on a set of axioms, applicable to any AI system, and flexible enough to incorporate any causal structure known to be respected by the data. We demonstrate that ASVs can (i) improve model explanations by incorporating causal information, (ii) provide an unambiguous test for unfair discrimination in model predictions, (iii) enable sequentially incremental explanations in time-series models, and (iv) support feature-selection studies without the need for model retraining.

Explanation Methods in Deep Learning: Users, Values, Concerns and Challenges

Gabrielle Ras, Marcel van Gerven, Pim Haselager

Issues regarding explainable AI involve four components: users, laws & regulations, explanations and algorithms. Together these components provide a context in which explanation methods can be evaluated regarding their adequacy. The goal of this chapter is to bridge the gap between expert users and lay users. Different kinds of users are identified and their concerns revealed, relevant statements from the General Data Protection Regulation are analyzed in the context of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), a taxonomy for the classification of existing explanation methods is introduced, and finally, the various classes of explanation methods are analyzed to verify if user concerns are justified. Overall, it is clear that (visual) explanations can be given about various aspects of the influence of the input on the output. However, it is noted that explanation methods or interfaces for lay users are missing and we speculate which criteria these methods / interfaces should satisfy. Finally it is noted that two important concerns are difficult to address with explanation methods: the concern about bias in datasets that leads to biased DNNs, as well as the suspicion about unfair outcomes.

Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challenges

Lu Cheng, Kush R. Varshney, Huan Liu

In the current era, people and society have grown increasingly reliant on artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. AI has the potential to drive us towards a future in which all of humanity flourishes. It also comes with substantial risks for oppression and calamity. Discussions about whether we should (re)trust AI have repeatedly emerged in recent years and in many quarters, including industry, academia, healthcare, services, and so on. Technologists and AI researchers have a responsibility to develop trustworthy AI systems. They have responded with great effort to design more responsible AI algorithms. However, existing technical solutions are narrow in scope and have been primarily directed towards algorithms for scoring or classification tasks, with an emphasis on fairness and unwanted bias. To build long-lasting trust between AI and human beings, we argue that the key is to think beyond algorithmic fairness and connect major aspects of AI that potentially cause AI's indifferent behavior. In this survey, we provide a systematic framework of Socially Responsible AI Algorithms that aims to examine the subjects of AI indifference and the need for socially responsible AI algorithms, define the objectives, and introduce the means by which we may achieve these objectives. We further discuss how to leverage this framework to improve societal well-being through protection, information, and prevention/mitigation.

Demographic Inference and Representative Population Estimates from Multilingual Social Media Data

Zijian Wang, Scott A. Hale, David Adelani +4

Social media provide access to behavioural data at an unprecedented scale and granularity. However, using these data to understand phenomena in a broader population is difficult due to their non-representativeness and the bias of statistical inference tools towards dominant languages and groups. While demographic attribute inference could be used to mitigate such bias, current techniques are almost entirely monolingual and fail to work in a global environment. We address these challenges by combining multilingual demographic inference with post-stratification to create a more representative population sample. To learn demographic attributes, we create a new multimodal deep neural architecture for joint classification of age, gender, and organization-status of social media users that operates in 32 languages. This method substantially outperforms current state of the art while also reducing algorithmic bias. To correct for sampling biases, we propose fully interpretable multilevel regression methods that estimate inclusion probabilities from inferred joint population counts and ground-truth population counts. In a large experiment over multilingual heterogeneous European regions, we show that our demographic inference and bias correction together allow for more accurate estimates of populations and make a significant step towards representative social sensing in downstream applications with multilingual social media.

Characterising Bias in Compressed Models

Sara Hooker, Nyalleng Moorosi, Gregory Clark +2

The popularity and widespread use of pruning and quantization is driven by the severe resource constraints of deploying deep neural networks to environments with strict latency, memory and energy requirements. These techniques achieve high levels of compression with negligible impact on top-line metrics (top-1 and top-5 accuracy). However, overall accuracy hides disproportionately high errors on a small subset of examples; we call this subset Compression Identified Exemplars (CIE). We further establish that for CIE examples, compression amplifies existing algorithmic bias. Pruning disproportionately impacts performance on underrepresented features, which often coincides with considerations of fairness. Given that CIE is a relatively small subset but a great contributor of error in the model, we propose its use as a human-in-the-loop auditing tool to surface a tractable subset of the dataset for further inspection or annotation by a domain expert. We provide qualitative and quantitative support that CIE surfaces the most challenging examples in the data distribution for human-in-the-loop auditing.

Organizations are rapidly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to manage their workers. However, AI has been found at times to be unfair to workers. Unfairness toward workers has been associated with decreased worker effort and increased worker turnover. To avoid such problems, AI systems must be designed to support fairness and redress instances of unfairness. Despite the attention related to AI unfairness, there has not been a theoretical and systematic approach to developing a design agenda. This paper addresses the issue in three ways. First, we introduce the organizational justice theory, three different fairness types (distributive, procedural, interactional), and the frameworks for redressing instances of unfairness (retributive justice, restorative justice). Second, we review the design literature that specifically focuses on issues of AI fairness in organizations. Third, we propose a design agenda for AI fairness in organizations that applies each of the fairness types to organizational scenarios. Then, the paper concludes with implications for future research.

How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness

Nripsuta Saxena, Karen Huang, Evan DeFilippis +3

What is the best way to define algorithmic fairness? While many definitions of fairness have been proposed in the computer science literature, there is no clear agreement over a particular definition. In this work, we investigate ordinary people's perceptions of three of these fairness definitions. Across two online experiments, we test which definitions people perceive to be the fairest in the context of loan decisions, and whether fairness perceptions change with the addition of sensitive information (i.e., race of the loan applicants). Overall, one definition (calibrated fairness) tends to be more preferred than the others, and the results also provide support for the principle of affirmative action.

Ethics in AI becomes a global topic of interest for both policymakers and academic researchers. In the last few years, various research organizations, lawyers, think tankers and regulatory bodies get involved in developing AI ethics guidelines and principles. However, there is still debate about the implications of these principles. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) study to investigate the agreement on the significance of AI principles and identify the challenging factors that could negatively impact the adoption of AI ethics principles. The results reveal that the global convergence set consists of 22 ethical principles and 15 challenges. Transparency, privacy, accountability and fairness are identified as the most common AI ethics principles. Similarly, lack of ethical knowledge and vague principles are reported as the significant challenges for considering ethics in AI. The findings of this study are the preliminary inputs for proposing a maturity model that assess the ethical capabilities of AI systems and provide best practices for further improvements.

In light of the NIMH's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), the advent of functional neuroimaging, novel technologies and methods provide new opportunities to develop precise and personalized prognosis and diagnosis of mental disorders. Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are playing an increasingly critical role in the new era of precision psychiatry. Combining ML/AI with neuromodulation technologies can potentially provide explainable solutions in clinical practice and effective therapeutic treatment. Advanced wearable and mobile technologies also call for the new role of ML/AI for digital phenotyping in mobile mental health. In this review, we provide a comprehensive review of the ML methodologies and applications by combining neuroimaging, neuromodulation, and advanced mobile technologies in psychiatry practice. Additionally, we review the role of ML in molecular phenotyping and cross-species biomarker identification in precision psychiatry. We further discuss explainable AI (XAI) and causality testing in a closed-human-in-the-loop manner, and highlight the ML potential in multimedia information extraction and multimodal data fusion. Finally, we discuss conceptual and practical challenges in precision psychiatry and highlight ML opportunities in future research.

Benchmark datasets play a central role in the organization of machine learning research. They coordinate researchers around shared research problems and serve as a measure of progress towards shared goals. Despite the foundational role of benchmarking practices in this field, relatively little attention has been paid to the dynamics of benchmark dataset use and reuse, within or across machine learning subcommunities. In this paper, we dig into these dynamics. We study how dataset usage patterns differ across machine learning subcommunities and across time from 2015-2020. We find increasing concentration on fewer and fewer datasets within task communities, significant adoption of datasets from other tasks, and concentration across the field on datasets that have been introduced by researchers situated within a small number of elite institutions. Our results have implications for scientific evaluation, AI ethics, and equity/access within the field.

Predictive modeling is increasingly being employed to assist human decision-makers. One purported advantage of replacing or augmenting human judgment with computer models in high stakes settings-- such as sentencing, hiring, policing, college admissions, and parole decisions-- is the perceived "neutrality" of computers. It is argued that because computer models do not hold personal prejudice, the predictions they produce will be equally free from prejudice. There is growing recognition that employing algorithms does not remove the potential for bias, and can even amplify it if the training data were generated by a process that is itself biased. In this paper, we provide a probabilistic notion of algorithmic bias. We propose a method to eliminate bias from predictive models by removing all information regarding protected variables from the data to which the models will ultimately be trained. Unlike previous work in this area, our framework is general enough to accommodate data on any measurement scale. Motivated by models currently in use in the criminal justice system that inform decisions on pre-trial release and parole, we apply our proposed method to a dataset on the criminal histories of individuals at the time of sentencing to produce "race-neutral" predictions of re-arrest. In the process, we demonstrate that a common approach to creating "race-neutral" models-- omitting race as a covariate-- still results in racially disparate predictions. We then demonstrate that the application of our proposed method to these data removes racial disparities from predictions with minimal impact on predictive accuracy.