Research Papers

Understanding Machine Learning Practitioners' Data Documentation Perceptions, Needs, Challenges, and Desiderata

Amy K. Heger, Liz B. Marquis, Mihaela Vorvoreanu +2

Data is central to the development and evaluation of machine learning (ML) models. However, the use of problematic or inappropriate datasets can result in harms when the resulting models are deployed. To encourage responsible AI practice through more deliberate reflection on datasets and transparency around the processes by which they are created, researchers and practitioners have begun to advocate for increased data documentation and have proposed several data documentation frameworks. However, there is little research on whether these data documentation frameworks meet the needs of ML practitioners, who both create and consume datasets. To address this gap, we set out to understand ML practitioners' data documentation perceptions, needs, challenges, and desiderata, with the goal of deriving design requirements that can inform future data documentation frameworks. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with 14 ML practitioners at a single large, international technology company. We had them answer a list of questions taken from datasheets for datasets (Gebru, 2021). Our findings show that current approaches to data documentation are largely ad hoc and myopic in nature. Participants expressed needs for data documentation frameworks to be adaptable to their contexts, integrated into their existing tools and workflows, and automated wherever possible. Despite the fact that data documentation frameworks are often motivated from the perspective of responsible AI, participants did not make the connection between the questions that they were asked to answer and their responsible AI implications. In addition, participants often had difficulties prioritizing the needs of dataset consumers and providing information that someone unfamiliar with their datasets might need to know. Based on these findings, we derive seven design requirements for future data documentation frameworks.

AI Ethics Principles in Practice: Perspectives of Designers and Developers

Conrad Sanderson, David Douglas, Qinghua Lu +7

As consensus across the various published AI ethics principles is approached, a gap remains between high-level principles and practical techniques that can be readily adopted to design and develop responsible AI systems. We examine the practices and experiences of researchers and engineers from Australia's national scientific research agency (CSIRO), who are involved in designing and developing AI systems for many application areas. Semi-structured interviews were used to examine how the practices of the participants relate to and align with a set of high-level AI ethics principles proposed by the Australian Government. The principles comprise: (1) privacy protection and security, (2) reliability and safety, (3) transparency and explainability, (4) fairness, (5) contestability, (6) accountability, (7) human-centred values, (8) human, social and environmental wellbeing. Discussions on the gained insights from the interviews include various tensions and trade-offs between the principles, and provide suggestions for implementing each high-level principle. We also present suggestions aiming to enhance associated support mechanisms.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly sophisticated, leading to widespread deployment in sensitive applications where safety and reliability are paramount. However, LLMs have inherent risks accompanying them, including bias, potential for unsafe actions, dataset poisoning, lack of explainability, hallucinations, and non-reproducibility. These risks necessitate the development of "guardrails" to align LLMs with desired behaviors and mitigate potential harm. This work explores the risks associated with deploying LLMs and evaluates current approaches to implementing guardrails and model alignment techniques. We examine intrinsic and extrinsic bias evaluation methods and discuss the importance of fairness metrics for responsible AI development. The safety and reliability of agentic LLMs (those capable of real-world actions) are explored, emphasizing the need for testability, fail-safes, and situational awareness. Technical strategies for securing LLMs are presented, including a layered protection model operating at external, secondary, and internal levels. System prompts, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architectures, and techniques to minimize bias and protect privacy are highlighted. Effective guardrail design requires a deep understanding of the LLM's intended use case, relevant regulations, and ethical considerations. Striking a balance between competing requirements, such as accuracy and privacy, remains an ongoing challenge. This work underscores the importance of continuous research and development to ensure the safe and responsible use of LLMs in real-world applications.

FR-Train: A Mutual Information-Based Approach to Fair and Robust Training

Yuji Roh, Kangwook Lee, Steven Euijong Whang +1

Trustworthy AI is a critical issue in machine learning where, in addition to training a model that is accurate, one must consider both fair and robust training in the presence of data bias and poisoning. However, the existing model fairness techniques mistakenly view poisoned data as an additional bias to be fixed, resulting in severe performance degradation. To address this problem, we propose FR-Train, which holistically performs fair and robust model training. We provide a mutual information-based interpretation of an existing adversarial training-based fairness-only method, and apply this idea to architect an additional discriminator that can identify poisoned data using a clean validation set and reduce its influence. In our experiments, FR-Train shows almost no decrease in fairness and accuracy in the presence of data poisoning by both mitigating the bias and defending against poisoning. We also demonstrate how to construct clean validation sets using crowdsourcing, and release new benchmark datasets.

Emerging Distributed AI systems are revolutionizing big data computing and data processing capabilities with growing economic and societal impact. However, recent studies have identified new attack surfaces and risks caused by security, privacy, and fairness issues in AI systems. In this paper, we review representative techniques, algorithms, and theoretical foundations for trustworthy distributed AI through robustness guarantee, privacy protection, and fairness awareness in distributed learning. We first provide a brief overview of alternative architectures for distributed learning, discuss inherent vulnerabilities for security, privacy, and fairness of AI algorithms in distributed learning, and analyze why these problems are present in distributed learning regardless of specific architectures. Then we provide a unique taxonomy of countermeasures for trustworthy distributed AI, covering (1) robustness to evasion attacks and irregular queries at inference, and robustness to poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks, and irregular data distribution during training; (2) privacy protection during distributed learning and model inference at deployment; and (3) AI fairness and governance with respect to both data and models. We conclude with a discussion on open challenges and future research directions toward trustworthy distributed AI, such as the need for trustworthy AI policy guidelines, the AI responsibility-utility co-design, and incentives and compliance.

As the societal impact of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) grows, the goals for advancing DNNs become more complex and diverse, ranging from improving a conventional model accuracy metric to infusing advanced human virtues such as fairness, accountability, transparency (FaccT), and unbiasedness. Recently, techniques in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are attracting considerable attention, and have tremendously helped Machine Learning (ML) engineers in understanding AI models. However, at the same time, we started to witness the emerging need beyond XAI among AI communities; based on the insights learned from XAI, how can we better empower ML engineers in steering their DNNs so that the model's reasonableness and performance can be improved as intended? This article provides a timely and extensive literature overview of the field Explanation-Guided Learning (EGL), a domain of techniques that steer the DNNs' reasoning process by adding regularization, supervision, or intervention on model explanations. In doing so, we first provide a formal definition of EGL and its general learning paradigm. Secondly, an overview of the key factors for EGL evaluation, as well as summarization and categorization of existing evaluation procedures and metrics for EGL are provided. Finally, the current and potential future application areas and directions of EGL are discussed, and an extensive experimental study is presented aiming at providing comprehensive comparative studies among existing EGL models in various popular application domains, such as Computer Vision (CV) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) domains.

AI Fairness for People with Disabilities: Point of View

Shari Trewin

We consider how fair treatment in society for people with disabilities might be impacted by the rise in the use of artificial intelligence, and especially machine learning methods. We argue that fairness for people with disabilities is different to fairness for other protected attributes such as age, gender or race. One major difference is the extreme diversity of ways disabilities manifest, and people adapt. Secondly, disability information is highly sensitive and not always shared, precisely because of the potential for discrimination. Given these differences, we explore definitions of fairness and how well they work in the disability space. Finally, we suggest ways of approaching fairness for people with disabilities in AI applications.

Due to the recent cases of algorithmic bias in data-driven decision-making, machine learning methods are being put under the microscope in order to understand the root cause of these biases and how to correct them. Here, we consider a basic algorithmic task that is central in machine learning: subsampling from a large data set. Subsamples are used both as an end-goal in data summarization (where fairness could either be a legal, political or moral requirement) and to train algorithms (where biases in the samples are often a source of bias in the resulting model). Consequently, there is a growing effort to modify either the subsampling methods or the algorithms themselves in order to ensure fairness. However, in doing so, a question that seems to be overlooked is whether it is possible to produce fair subsamples that are also adequately representative of the feature space of the data set - an important and classic requirement in machine learning. Can diversity and fairness be simultaneously ensured? We start by noting that, in some applications, guaranteeing one does not necessarily guarantee the other, and a new approach is required. Subsequently, we present an algorithmic framework which allows us to produce both fair and diverse samples. Our experimental results on an image summarization task show marked improvements in fairness without compromising feature diversity by much, giving us the best of both the worlds.

Algorithmic fairness has attracted significant attention in recent years, with many quantitative measures suggested for characterizing the fairness of different machine learning algorithms. Despite this interest, the robustness of those fairness measures with respect to an intentional adversarial attack has not been properly addressed. Indeed, most adversarial machine learning has focused on the impact of malicious attacks on the accuracy of the system, without any regard to the system's fairness. We propose new types of data poisoning attacks where an adversary intentionally targets the fairness of a system. Specifically, we propose two families of attacks that target fairness measures. In the anchoring attack, we skew the decision boundary by placing poisoned points near specific target points to bias the outcome. In the influence attack on fairness, we aim to maximize the covariance between the sensitive attributes and the decision outcome and affect the fairness of the model. We conduct extensive experiments that indicate the effectiveness of our proposed attacks.

The pervasive application of algorithmic decision-making is raising concerns on the risk of unintended bias in AI systems deployed in critical settings such as healthcare. The detection and mitigation of biased models is a very delicate task which should be tackled with care and involving domain experts in the loop. In this paper we introduce FairLens, a methodology for discovering and explaining biases. We show how our tool can be used to audit a fictional commercial black-box model acting as a clinical decision support system. In this scenario, the healthcare facility experts can use FairLens on their own historical data to discover the model's biases before incorporating it into the clinical decision flow. FairLens first stratifies the available patient data according to attributes such as age, ethnicity, gender and insurance; it then assesses the model performance on such subgroups of patients identifying those in need of expert evaluation. Finally, building on recent state-of-the-art XAI (eXplainable Artificial Intelligence) techniques, FairLens explains which elements in patients' clinical history drive the model error in the selected subgroup. Therefore, FairLens allows experts to investigate whether to trust the model and to spotlight group-specific biases that might constitute potential fairness issues.

Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions

Henrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso, Tim Miller

As the use of algorithmic systems in high-stakes decision-making increases, the ability to contest algorithmic decisions is being recognised as an important safeguard for individuals. Yet, there is little guidance on what `contestability'--the ability to contest decisions--in relation to algorithmic decision-making requires. Recent research presents different conceptualisations of contestability in algorithmic decision-making. We contribute to this growing body of work by describing and analysing the perspectives of people and organisations who made submissions in response to Australia's proposed `AI Ethics Framework', the first framework of its kind to include `contestability' as a core ethical principle. Our findings reveal that while the nature of contestability is disputed, it is seen as a way to protect individuals, and it resembles contestability in relation to human decision-making. We reflect on and discuss the implications of these findings.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational measurement has revolutionized assessment methods, enabling automated scoring, rapid content analysis, and personalized feedback through machine learning and natural language processing. These advancements provide timely, consistent feedback and valuable insights into student performance, thereby enhancing the assessment experience. However, the deployment of AI in education also raises significant ethical concerns regarding validity, reliability, transparency, fairness, and equity. Issues such as algorithmic bias and the opacity of AI decision-making processes pose risks of perpetuating inequalities and affecting assessment outcomes. Responding to these concerns, various stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and organizations, have developed guidelines to ensure ethical AI use in education. The National Council of Measurement in Education's Special Interest Group on AI in Measurement and Education (AIME) also focuses on establishing ethical standards and advancing research in this area. In this paper, a diverse group of AIME members examines the ethical implications of AI-powered tools in educational measurement, explores significant challenges such as automation bias and environmental impact, and proposes solutions to ensure AI's responsible and effective use in education.