Which Skin Tone Measures are the Most Inclusive? An Investigation of Skin Tone Measures for Artificial Intelligence.

Courtney M. Heldreth, Ellis P. Monk, Alan T. Clark, Susanna Ricco, Candice Schumann, Xango Eyee
{"title":"Which Skin Tone Measures are the Most Inclusive? An Investigation of Skin Tone Measures for Artificial Intelligence.","authors":"Courtney M. Heldreth, Ellis P. Monk, Alan T. Clark, Susanna Ricco, Candice Schumann, Xango Eyee","doi":"10.1145/3632120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Skin tone plays a critical role in artificial intelligence (AI). However, many algorithms have exhibited unfair bias against people with darker skin tones. One reason this occurs is a poor understanding of how well the scales we use to measure and account for skin tone in AI actually represent the variation of skin tones in people affected by these systems. To address this, we conducted a survey with 2,214 people in the United States to compare three skin tone scales: The Fitzpatrick 6-point scale, Rihanna's Fenty™ Beauty 40-point skin tone palette, and a newly developed Monk 10-point scale from the social sciences. We find that the Fitzpatrick scale is perceived to be less inclusive than the Fenty and Monk skin tone scales, and this was especially true for people from historically marginalized communities (i.e., people with darker skin tones, BIPOCs, and women). We also find no statistically meaningful differences in perceived representation across the Monk skin tone scale and the Fenty Beauty palette. We discuss the ways in which our findings can advance the understanding of skin tone in both the social science and machine learning communities.","PeriodicalId":329595,"journal":{"name":"ACM Journal on Responsible Computing","volume":" 30","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Journal on Responsible Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3632120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Skin tone plays a critical role in artificial intelligence (AI). However, many algorithms have exhibited unfair bias against people with darker skin tones. One reason this occurs is a poor understanding of how well the scales we use to measure and account for skin tone in AI actually represent the variation of skin tones in people affected by these systems. To address this, we conducted a survey with 2,214 people in the United States to compare three skin tone scales: The Fitzpatrick 6-point scale, Rihanna's Fenty™ Beauty 40-point skin tone palette, and a newly developed Monk 10-point scale from the social sciences. We find that the Fitzpatrick scale is perceived to be less inclusive than the Fenty and Monk skin tone scales, and this was especially true for people from historically marginalized communities (i.e., people with darker skin tones, BIPOCs, and women). We also find no statistically meaningful differences in perceived representation across the Monk skin tone scale and the Fenty Beauty palette. We discuss the ways in which our findings can advance the understanding of skin tone in both the social science and machine learning communities.
哪种肤色测量方法最具包容性?人工智能肤色测量方法研究。
肤色在人工智能(AI)中起着至关重要的作用。然而,许多算法对肤色较深的人表现出不公平的偏见。发生这种情况的一个原因是,我们对人工智能中用于测量和解释肤色的尺度实际上如何代表受这些系统影响的人的肤色变化的理解不足。为了解决这个问题,我们在美国对2214人进行了一项调查,比较了三种肤色量表:菲茨帕特里克6分制,蕾哈娜的Fenty™Beauty 40分制肤色调色板,以及社会科学新开发的Monk 10分制。我们发现Fitzpatrick量表被认为比Fenty和Monk肤色量表更具包容性,对于历史上被边缘化的群体(即肤色较深的人、bipoc和女性)来说尤其如此。我们还发现,在Monk肤色量表和Fenty Beauty调色板上,感知表征没有统计学意义的差异。我们讨论了我们的发现可以促进社会科学和机器学习社区对肤色的理解的方式。
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