Research Papers

Counterfactual explanations are increasingly used as an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique to provide stakeholders of complex machine learning algorithms with explanations for data-driven decisions. The popularity of counterfactual explanations resulted in a boom in the algorithms generating them. However, not every algorithm creates uniform explanations for the same instance. Even though in some contexts multiple possible explanations are beneficial, there are circumstances where diversity amongst counterfactual explanations results in a potential disagreement problem among stakeholders. Ethical issues arise when for example, malicious agents use this diversity to fairwash an unfair machine learning model by hiding sensitive features. As legislators worldwide tend to start including the right to explanations for data-driven, high-stakes decisions in their policies, these ethical issues should be understood and addressed. Our literature review on the disagreement problem in XAI reveals that this problem has never been empirically assessed for counterfactual explanations. Therefore, in this work, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis, on 40 datasets, using 12 explanation-generating methods, for two black-box models, yielding over 192.0000 explanations. Our study finds alarmingly high disagreement levels between the methods tested. A malicious user is able to both exclude and include desired features when multiple counterfactual explanations are available. This disagreement seems to be driven mainly by the dataset characteristics and the type of counterfactual algorithm. XAI centers on the transparency of algorithmic decision-making, but our analysis advocates for transparency about this self-proclaimed transparency

Towards a Praxis for Intercultural Ethics in Explainable AI

Chinasa T. Okolo

Explainable AI (XAI) is often promoted with the idea of helping users understand how machine learning models function and produce predictions. Still, most of these benefits are reserved for those with specialized domain knowledge, such as machine learning developers. Recent research has argued that making AI explainable can be a viable way of making AI more useful in real-world contexts, especially within low-resource domains in the Global South. While AI has transcended borders, a limited amount of work focuses on democratizing the concept of explainable AI to the "majority world", leaving much room to explore and develop new approaches within this space that cater to the distinct needs of users within culturally and socially-diverse regions. This article introduces the concept of an intercultural ethics approach to AI explainability. It examines how cultural nuances impact the adoption and use of technology, the factors that impede how technical concepts such as AI are explained, and how integrating an intercultural ethics approach in the development of XAI can improve user understanding and facilitate efficient usage of these methods.

Thinking Upstream: Ethics and Policy Opportunities in AI Supply Chains

David Gray Widder, Richmond Wong

After children were pictured sewing its running shoes in the early 1990s, Nike at first disavowed the "working conditions in its suppliers' factories", before public pressure led them to take responsibility for ethics in their upstream supply chain. In 2023, OpenAI responded to criticism that Kenyan workers were paid less than $2 per hour to filter traumatic content from its ChatGPT model by stating in part that it had outsourced the work to a subcontractor, who managed workers' payment and mental health concerns. In this position paper, we argue that policy interventions for AI Ethics must consider AI as a supply chain problem, given how the political economy and intra-firm relations structure AI production, in particular examining opportunities upstream.

Monotonicity for AI ethics and society: An empirical study of the monotonic neural additive model in criminology, education, health care, and finance

Dangxing Chen, Luyao Zhang

Algorithm fairness in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) is essential for a better society. As the foundational axiom of social mechanisms, fairness consists of multiple facets. Although the machine learning (ML) community has focused on intersectionality as a matter of statistical parity, especially in discrimination issues, an emerging body of literature addresses another facet -- monotonicity. Based on domain expertise, monotonicity plays a vital role in numerous fairness-related areas, where violations could misguide human decisions and lead to disastrous consequences. In this paper, we first systematically evaluate the significance of applying monotonic neural additive models (MNAMs), which use a fairness-aware ML algorithm to enforce both individual and pairwise monotonicity principles, for the fairness of AI ethics and society. We have found, through a hybrid method of theoretical reasoning, simulation, and extensive empirical analysis, that considering monotonicity axioms is essential in all areas of fairness, including criminology, education, health care, and finance. Our research contributes to the interdisciplinary research at the interface of AI ethics, explainable AI (XAI), and human-computer interactions (HCIs). By evidencing the catastrophic consequences if monotonicity is not met, we address the significance of monotonicity requirements in AI applications. Furthermore, we demonstrate that MNAMs are an effective fairness-aware ML approach by imposing monotonicity restrictions integrating human intelligence.

With the rising adoption of Machine Learning across the domains like banking, pharmaceutical, ed-tech, etc, it has become utmost important to adopt responsible AI methods to ensure models are not unfairly discriminating against any group. Given the lack of clean training data, generative adversarial techniques are preferred to generate synthetic data with several state-of-the-art architectures readily available across various domains from unstructured data such as text, images to structured datasets modelling fraud detection and many more. These techniques overcome several challenges such as class imbalance, limited training data, restricted access to data due to privacy issues. Existing work focusing on generating fair data either works for a certain GAN architecture or is very difficult to tune across the GANs. In this paper, we propose a pipeline to generate fairer synthetic data independent of the GAN architecture. The proposed paper utilizes a pre-processing algorithm to identify and remove bias inducing samples. In particular, we claim that while generating synthetic data most GANs amplify bias present in the training data but by removing these bias inducing samples, GANs essentially focuses more on real informative samples. Our experimental evaluation on two open-source datasets demonstrates how the proposed pipeline is generating fair data along with improved performance in some cases.

We survey the treatment of sex and gender in the Computer Graphics research literature from an algorithmic fairness perspective. The established practices on the use of gender and sex in our community are scientifically incorrect and constitute a form of algorithmic bias with potential harmful effects. We propose ways of addressing these as technical limitations.

Predictive parity (PP), also known as sufficiency, is a core definition of algorithmic fairness essentially stating that model outputs must have the same interpretation of expected outcomes regardless of group. Testing and satisfying PP is especially important in many settings where model scores are interpreted by humans or directly provide access to opportunity, such as healthcare or banking. Solutions for PP violations have primarily been studied through the lens of model calibration. However, we find that existing calibration-based tests and mitigation methods are designed for independent data, which is often not assumable in large-scale applications such as social media or medical testing. In this work, we address this issue by developing a statistically rigorous non-parametric regression based test for PP with dependent observations. We then apply our test to illustrate that PP testing can significantly vary under the two assumptions. Lastly, we provide a mitigation solution to provide a minimally-biased post-processing transformation function to achieve PP.

Training Characteristic Functions with Reinforcement Learning: XAI-methods play Connect Four

Stephan Wäldchen, Felix Huber, Sebastian Pokutta

One of the goals of Explainable AI (XAI) is to determine which input components were relevant for a classifier decision. This is commonly know as saliency attribution. Characteristic functions (from cooperative game theory) are able to evaluate partial inputs and form the basis for theoretically "fair" attribution methods like Shapley values. Given only a standard classifier function, it is unclear how partial input should be realised. Instead, most XAI-methods for black-box classifiers like neural networks consider counterfactual inputs that generally lie off-manifold. This makes them hard to evaluate and easy to manipulate. We propose a setup to directly train characteristic functions in the form of neural networks to play simple two-player games. We apply this to the game of Connect Four by randomly hiding colour information from our agents during training. This has three advantages for comparing XAI-methods: It alleviates the ambiguity about how to realise partial input, makes off-manifold evaluation unnecessary and allows us to compare the methods by letting them play against each other.

An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles

Michael Feffer, Martin Hirzel, Samuel C. Hoffman +3

There are several bias mitigators that can reduce algorithmic bias in machine learning models but, unfortunately, the effect of mitigators on fairness is often not stable when measured across different data splits. A popular approach to train more stable models is ensemble learning. Ensembles, such as bagging, boosting, voting, or stacking, have been successful at making predictive performance more stable. One might therefore ask whether we can combine the advantages of bias mitigators and ensembles? To explore this question, we first need bias mitigators and ensembles to work together. We built an open-source library enabling the modular composition of 10 mitigators, 4 ensembles, and their corresponding hyperparameters. Based on this library, we empirically explored the space of combinations on 13 datasets, including datasets commonly used in fairness literature plus datasets newly curated by our library. Furthermore, we distilled the results into a guidance diagram for practitioners. We hope this paper will contribute towards improving stability in bias mitigation.

Language data and models demonstrate various types of bias, be it ethnic, religious, gender, or socioeconomic. AI/NLP models, when trained on the racially biased dataset, AI/NLP models instigate poor model explainability, influence user experience during decision making and thus further magnifies societal biases, raising profound ethical implications for society. The motivation of the study is to investigate how AI systems imbibe bias from data and produce unexplainable discriminatory outcomes and influence an individual's articulateness of system outcome due to the presence of racial bias features in datasets. The design of the experiment involves studying the counterfactual impact of racial bias features present in language datasets and its associated effect on the model outcome. A mixed research methodology is adopted to investigate the cross implication of biased model outcome on user experience, effect on decision-making through controlled lab experimentation. The findings provide foundation support for correlating the implication of carry-over an artificial intelligence model solving NLP task due to biased concept presented in the dataset. Further, the research outcomes justify the negative influence on users' persuasiveness that leads to alter the decision-making quotient of an individual when trying to rely on the model outcome to act. The paper bridges the gap across the harm caused in establishing poor customer trustworthiness due to an inequitable system design and provides strong support for researchers, policymakers, and data scientists to build responsible AI frameworks within organizations.

Algorithmic (including AI/ML) decision-making artifacts are an established and growing part of our decision-making ecosystem. They are indispensable tools for managing the flood of information needed to make effective decisions in a complex world. The current literature is full of examples of how individual artifacts violate societal norms and expectations (e.g. violations of fairness, privacy, or safety norms). Against this backdrop, this discussion highlights an under-emphasized perspective in the literature on assessing value misalignment in AI-equipped sociotechnical systems. The research on value misalignment has a strong focus on the behavior of individual tech artifacts. This discussion argues for a more structured systems-level approach for assessing value-alignment in sociotechnical systems. We rely primarily on the research on fairness to make our arguments more concrete. And we use the opportunity to highlight how adopting a system perspective improves our ability to explain and address value misalignments better. Our discussion ends with an exploration of priority questions that demand attention if we are to assure the value alignment of whole systems, not just individual artifacts.

Fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) has become a growing concern due to discriminatory outcomes in AI-based decision-making systems. While various methods have been proposed to mitigate bias, most rely on complete demographic information, an assumption often impractical due to legal constraints and the risk of reinforcing discrimination. This survey examines fairness in AI when demographics are incomplete, addressing the gap between traditional approaches and real-world challenges. We introduce a novel taxonomy of fairness notions in this setting, clarifying their relationships and distinctions. Additionally, we summarize existing techniques that promote fairness beyond complete demographics and highlight open research questions to encourage further progress in the field.