What Makes an Image Tagger Fair?

Pinar Barlas, S. Kleanthous, K. Kyriakou, Jahna Otterbacher
{"title":"What Makes an Image Tagger Fair?","authors":"Pinar Barlas, S. Kleanthous, K. Kyriakou, Jahna Otterbacher","doi":"10.1145/3320435.3320442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Image analysis algorithms have been a boon to personalization in digital systems and are now widely available via easy-to-use APIs. However, it is important to ensure that they behave fairly in applications that involve processing images of people, such as dating apps. We conduct an experiment to shed light on the factors influencing the perception of \"fairness.\" Participants are shown a photo along with two descriptions (human- and algorithm-generated). They are then asked to indicate which is \"more fair\" in the context of a dating site, and explain their reasoning. We vary a number of factors, including the gender, race and attractiveness of the person in the photo. While participants generally found human-generated tags to be more fair, API tags were judged as being more fair in one setting - where the image depicted an \"attractive,\" white individual. In their explanations, participants often mention accuracy, as well as the objectivity/subjectivity of the tags in the description. We relate our work to the ongoing conversation about fairness in opaque tools like image tagging APIs, and their potential to result in harm.","PeriodicalId":254537,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3320435.3320442","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Image analysis algorithms have been a boon to personalization in digital systems and are now widely available via easy-to-use APIs. However, it is important to ensure that they behave fairly in applications that involve processing images of people, such as dating apps. We conduct an experiment to shed light on the factors influencing the perception of "fairness." Participants are shown a photo along with two descriptions (human- and algorithm-generated). They are then asked to indicate which is "more fair" in the context of a dating site, and explain their reasoning. We vary a number of factors, including the gender, race and attractiveness of the person in the photo. While participants generally found human-generated tags to be more fair, API tags were judged as being more fair in one setting - where the image depicted an "attractive," white individual. In their explanations, participants often mention accuracy, as well as the objectivity/subjectivity of the tags in the description. We relate our work to the ongoing conversation about fairness in opaque tools like image tagging APIs, and their potential to result in harm.
什么使图像标签公平?
图像分析算法一直是数字系统个性化的福音,现在通过易于使用的api广泛可用。然而,重要的是要确保它们在涉及处理人类图像的应用程序(如约会应用程序)中表现公平。我们进行了一项实验来揭示影响“公平”感知的因素。参与者会看到一张附有两种描述的照片(人工描述和算法描述)。然后,他们被要求指出在约会网站的背景下哪个“更公平”,并解释他们的理由。我们改变了很多因素,包括性别、种族和照片中人的吸引力。虽然参与者普遍认为人工生成的标签更公平,但API标签在一种情况下被认为更公平——图像描绘了一个“有吸引力的”白人。在他们的解释中,参与者经常提到准确性,以及描述中标签的客观性/主观性。我们将我们的工作与正在进行的关于图像标记api等不透明工具的公平性及其潜在危害的讨论联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信