Research Papers

Informal settlements are home to the most socially and economically vulnerable people on the planet. In order to deliver effective economic and social aid, non-government organizations (NGOs), such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), require detailed maps of the locations of informal settlements. However, data regarding informal and formal settlements is primarily unavailable and if available is often incomplete. This is due, in part, to the cost and complexity of gathering data on a large scale. To address these challenges, we, in this work, provide three contributions. 1) A brand new machine learning data-set, purposely developed for informal settlement detection. 2) We show that it is possible to detect informal settlements using freely available low-resolution (LR) data, in contrast to previous studies that use very-high resolution (VHR) satellite and aerial imagery, something that is cost-prohibitive for NGOs. 3) We demonstrate two effective classification schemes on our curated data set, one that is cost-efficient for NGOs and another that is cost-prohibitive for NGOs, but has additional utility. We integrate these schemes into a semi-automated pipeline that converts either a LR or VHR satellite image into a binary map that encodes the locations of informal settlements.

Massive efforts are made to reduce biases in both data and algorithms in order to render AI applications fair. These efforts are propelled by various high-profile cases where biased algorithmic decision-making caused harm to women, people of color, minorities, etc. However, the AI fairness field still succumbs to a blind spot, namely its insensitivity to discrimination against animals. This paper is the first to describe the 'speciesist bias' and investigate it in several different AI systems. Speciesist biases are learned and solidified by AI applications when they are trained on datasets in which speciesist patterns prevail. These patterns can be found in image recognition systems, large language models, and recommender systems. Therefore, AI technologies currently play a significant role in perpetuating and normalizing violence against animals. This can only be changed when AI fairness frameworks widen their scope and include mitigation measures for speciesist biases. This paper addresses the AI community in this regard and stresses the influence AI systems can have on either increasing or reducing the violence that is inflicted on animals, and especially on farmed animals.

With the ever-growing achievements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the recent boosted enthusiasm in Financial Technology (FinTech), applications such as credit scoring have gained substantial academic interest. Credit scoring helps financial experts make better decisions regarding whether or not to accept a loan application, such that loans with a high probability of default are not accepted. Apart from the noisy and highly imbalanced data challenges faced by such credit scoring models, recent regulations such as the `right to explanation' introduced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) have added the need for model interpretability to ensure that algorithmic decisions are understandable and coherent. An interesting concept that has been recently introduced is eXplainable AI (XAI), which focuses on making black-box models more interpretable. In this work, we present a credit scoring model that is both accurate and interpretable. For classification, state-of-the-art performance on the Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) and Lending Club (LC) Datasets is achieved using the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model. The model is then further enhanced with a 360-degree explanation framework, which provides different explanations (i.e. global, local feature-based and local instance-based) that are required by different people in different situations. Evaluation through the use of functionallygrounded, application-grounded and human-grounded analysis show that the explanations provided are simple, consistent as well as satisfy the six predetermined hypotheses testing for correctness, effectiveness, easy understanding, detail sufficiency and trustworthiness.

Ensuring safe adoption of AI tools in healthcare hinges on access to sufficient data for training, testing and validation. In response to privacy concerns and regulatory requirements, using synthetic data has been suggested. Synthetic data is created by training a generator on real data to produce a dataset with similar statistical properties. Competing metrics with differing taxonomies for quality evaluation have been suggested, resulting in a complex landscape. Optimising quality entails balancing considerations that make the data fit for use, yet relevant dimensions are left out of existing frameworks. We performed a comprehensive literature review on the use of quality evaluation metrics on SD within the scope of tabular healthcare data and SD made using deep generative methods. Based on this and the collective team experiences, we developed a conceptual framework for quality assurance. The applicability was benchmarked against a practical case from the Dutch National Cancer Registry. We present a conceptual framework for quality assurance of SD for AI applications in healthcare that aligns diverging taxonomies, expands on common quality dimensions to include the dimensions of Fairness and Carbon footprint, and proposes stages necessary to support real-life applications. Building trust in synthetic data by increasing transparency and reducing the safety risk will accelerate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI tools for the benefit of patients. Despite the growing emphasis on algorithmic fairness and carbon footprint, these metrics were scarce in the literature review. The overwhelming focus was on statistical similarity using distance metrics while sequential logic detection was scarce. A consensus-backed framework that includes all relevant quality dimensions can provide assurance for safe and responsible real-life applications of SD.

Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness

Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Vagrant Gautam +2

Intersectionality is a critical framework that, through inquiry and praxis, allows us to examine how social inequalities persist through domains of structure and discipline. Given AI fairness' raison d'etre of "fairness", we argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness. Through a critical review of how intersectionality is discussed in 30 papers from the AI fairness literature, we deductively and inductively: 1) map how intersectionality tenets operate within the AI fairness paradigm and 2) uncover gaps between the conceptualization and operationalization of intersectionality. We find that researchers overwhelmingly reduce intersectionality to optimizing for fairness metrics over demographic subgroups. They also fail to discuss their social context and when mentioning power, they mostly situate it only within the AI pipeline. We: 3) outline and assess the implications of these gaps for critical inquiry and praxis, and 4) provide actionable recommendations for AI fairness researchers to engage with intersectionality in their work by grounding it in AI epistemology.

In this critical survey, we analyze typical claims on the relationship between explainable AI (XAI) and fairness to disentangle the multidimensional relationship between these two concepts. Based on a systematic literature review and a subsequent qualitative content analysis, we identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We present crucial caveats with respect to these claims and provide an entry point for future discussions around the potentials and limitations of XAI for specific fairness desiderata. Importantly, we notice that claims are often (i) vague and simplistic, (ii) lacking normative grounding, or (iii) poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness. Moreover, when making a claim about XAI and fairness, we emphasize the need to be more specific about what kind of XAI method is used, which fairness desideratum it refers to, how exactly it enables fairness, and who is the stakeholder that benefits from XAI.

Blind people use artificial intelligence-enabled visual assistance technologies (AI VAT) to gain visual access in their everyday lives, but these technologies are embedded with errors that may be difficult to verify non-visually. Previous studies have primarily explored sighted users' understanding of AI output and created vision-dependent explainable AI (XAI) features. We extend this body of literature by conducting an in-depth qualitative study with 26 blind people to understand their verification experiences and preferences. We begin by describing errors blind people encounter, highlighting how AI VAT fails to support complex document layouts, diverse languages, and cultural artifacts. We then illuminate how blind people make sense of AI through experimenting with AI VAT, employing non-visual skills, strategically including sighted people, and cross-referencing with other devices. Participants provided detailed opportunities for designing accessible XAI, such as affordances to support contestation. Informed by disability studies framework of misfitting and fitting, we unpacked harmful assumptions with AI VAT, underscoring the importance of celebrating disabled ways of knowing. Lastly, we offer practical takeaways for Responsible AI practice to push the field of accessible XAI forward.

Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is a framework for integrating human values throughout the technology design process. In parallel, Responsible AI (RAI) advocates for the development of systems aligning with ethical values, such as fairness and transparency. In this study, we posit that a VSD approach is not only compatible, but also advantageous to the development of RAI toolkits. To empirically assess this hypothesis, we conducted four workshops involving 17 early-career AI researchers. Our aim was to establish links between VSD and RAI values while examining how existing toolkits incorporate VSD principles in their design. Our findings show that collaborative and educational design features within these toolkits, including illustrative examples and open-ended cues, facilitate an understanding of human and ethical values, and empower researchers to incorporate values into AI systems. Drawing on these insights, we formulated six design guidelines for integrating VSD values into the development of RAI toolkits.

For synergistic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, AI outputs often need to be explainable to people. Explainable AI (XAI) systems are commonly tested in human user studies. However, whether XAI researchers consider potential cultural differences in human explanatory needs remains unexplored. We highlight psychological research that found significant differences in human explanations between many people from Western, commonly individualist countries and people from non-Western, often collectivist countries. We argue that XAI research currently overlooks these variations and that many popular XAI designs implicitly and problematically assume that Western explanatory needs are shared cross-culturally. Additionally, we systematically reviewed over 200 XAI user studies and found that most studies did not consider relevant cultural variations, sampled only Western populations, but drew conclusions about human-XAI interactions more generally. We also analyzed over 30 literature reviews of XAI studies. Most reviews did not mention cultural differences in explanatory needs or flag overly broad cross-cultural extrapolations of XAI user study results. Combined, our analyses provide evidence of a cultural bias toward Western populations in XAI research, highlighting an important knowledge gap regarding how culturally diverse users may respond to widely used XAI systems that future work can and should address.

Rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems amplify many concerns in society. These AI algorithms inherit different biases from humans due to mysterious operational flow and because of that it is becoming adverse in usage. As a result, researchers have started to address the issue by investigating deeper in the direction towards Responsible and Explainable AI. Among variety of applications of AI, facial expression recognition might not be the most important one, yet is considered as a valuable part of human-AI interaction. Evolution of facial expression recognition from the feature based methods to deep learning drastically improve quality of such algorithms. This research work aims to study a gender bias in deep learning methods for facial expression recognition by investigating six distinct neural networks, training them, and further analysed on the presence of bias, according to the three definition of fairness. The main outcomes show which models are gender biased, which are not and how gender of subject affects its emotion recognition. More biased neural networks show bigger accuracy gap in emotion recognition between male and female test sets. Furthermore, this trend keeps for true positive and false positive rates. In addition, due to the nature of the research, we can observe which types of emotions are better classified for men and which for women. Since the topic of biases in facial expression recognition is not well studied, a spectrum of continuation of this research is truly extensive, and may comprise detail analysis of state-of-the-art methods, as well as targeting other biases.

Recommender Systems (RS) play an integral role in enhancing user experiences by providing personalized item suggestions. This survey reviews the progress in RS inclusively from 2017 to 2024, effectively connecting theoretical advances with practical applications. We explore the development from traditional RS techniques like content-based and collaborative filtering to advanced methods involving deep learning, graph-based models, reinforcement learning, and large language models. We also discuss specialized systems such as context-aware, review-based, and fairness-aware RS. The primary goal of this survey is to bridge theory with practice. It addresses challenges across various sectors, including e-commerce, healthcare, and finance, emphasizing the need for scalable, real-time, and trustworthy solutions. Through this survey, we promote stronger partnerships between academic research and industry practices. The insights offered by this survey aim to guide industry professionals in optimizing RS deployment and to inspire future research directions, especially in addressing emerging technological and societal trends\footnote. The survey resources are available in the public GitHub repository https://github.com/VectorInstitute/Recommender-Systems-Survey. (Recommender systems, large language models, chatgpt, responsible AI)

D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias

Bhavya Ghai, Klaus Mueller

With the rise of AI, algorithms have become better at learning underlying patterns from the training data including ingrained social biases based on gender, race, etc. Deployment of such algorithms to domains such as hiring, healthcare, law enforcement, etc. has raised serious concerns about fairness, accountability, trust and interpretability in machine learning algorithms. To alleviate this problem, we propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases from tabular datasets. It uses a graphical causal model to represent causal relationships among different features in the dataset and as a medium to inject domain knowledge. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group, say females, or a subgroup, say black females, by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network and using an array of fairness metrics. Thereafter, the user can mitigate bias by acting on the unfair causal edges. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset based on the current causal model. Users can visually assess the impact of their interactions on different fairness metrics, utility metrics, data distortion, and the underlying data distribution. Once satisfied, they can download the debiased dataset and use it for any downstream application for fairer predictions. We evaluate D-BIAS by conducting experiments on 3 datasets and also a formal user study. We found that D-BIAS helps reduce bias significantly compared to the baseline debiasing approach across different fairness metrics while incurring little data distortion and a small loss in utility. Moreover, our human-in-the-loop based approach significantly outperforms an automated approach on trust, interpretability and accountability.