机器学习中人类对公平的理解

Debjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan C. McElfresh, John P. Dickerson, Michelle L. Mazurek, Michael Carl Tschantz
{"title":"机器学习中人类对公平的理解","authors":"Debjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan C. McElfresh, John P. Dickerson, Michelle L. Mazurek, Michael Carl Tschantz","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, with notable examples including gender bias in job-related ads [4], racial bias in evaluating names on resumes [3], and racial bias in predicting criminal recidivism [1]. In response, research into algorithmic fairness has grown in both importance and volume over the past few years. Different metrics and approaches to algorithmic fairness have been proposed, many of which are based on prior legal and philosophical concepts [2]. The rapid expansion of this field makes it difficult for professionals to keep up, let alone the general public. Furthermore, misinformation about notions of fairness can have significant legal implications. Computer scientists have largely focused on developing mathematical notions of fairness and incorporating them in fielded ML systems. A much smaller collection of studies has measured public perception of bias and (un)fairness in algorithmic decision-making. However, one major question underlying the study of ML fairness remains unanswered in the literature: Does the general public understand mathematical definitions of ML fairness and their behavior in ML applications? We take a first step towards answering this question by studying non-expert comprehension and perceptions of one popular definition of ML fairness, demographic parity [5]. Specifically, we developed an online survey to address the following: (1) Does a non-technical audience comprehend the definition and implications of demographic parity? (2) Do demographics play a role in comprehension? (3) How are comprehension and sentiment related? (4) Does the application scenario affect comprehension?","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human Comprehension of Fairness in Machine Learning\",\"authors\":\"Debjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan C. McElfresh, John P. Dickerson, Michelle L. Mazurek, Michael Carl Tschantz\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3375627.3375819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, with notable examples including gender bias in job-related ads [4], racial bias in evaluating names on resumes [3], and racial bias in predicting criminal recidivism [1]. In response, research into algorithmic fairness has grown in both importance and volume over the past few years. Different metrics and approaches to algorithmic fairness have been proposed, many of which are based on prior legal and philosophical concepts [2]. The rapid expansion of this field makes it difficult for professionals to keep up, let alone the general public. Furthermore, misinformation about notions of fairness can have significant legal implications. Computer scientists have largely focused on developing mathematical notions of fairness and incorporating them in fielded ML systems. A much smaller collection of studies has measured public perception of bias and (un)fairness in algorithmic decision-making. However, one major question underlying the study of ML fairness remains unanswered in the literature: Does the general public understand mathematical definitions of ML fairness and their behavior in ML applications? We take a first step towards answering this question by studying non-expert comprehension and perceptions of one popular definition of ML fairness, demographic parity [5]. Specifically, we developed an online survey to address the following: (1) Does a non-technical audience comprehend the definition and implications of demographic parity? (2) Do demographics play a role in comprehension? (3) How are comprehension and sentiment related? (4) Does the application scenario affect comprehension?\",\"PeriodicalId\":93612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375819\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

机器学习中的偏见在几个领域都表现出不公正,值得注意的例子包括与工作相关的广告中的性别偏见[4],评估简历上姓名的种族偏见[3],以及预测犯罪累犯的种族偏见[1]。作为回应,在过去几年里,对算法公平性的研究在重要性和数量上都有所增长。已经提出了不同的算法公平性指标和方法,其中许多是基于先前的法律和哲学概念[2]。这一领域的迅速扩张使得专业人士很难跟上,更不用说普通大众了。此外,关于公平概念的错误信息可能会产生重大的法律影响。计算机科学家主要致力于发展公平的数学概念,并将其纳入领域机器学习系统。一项规模小得多的研究测量了公众对算法决策中的偏见和(不)公平的看法。然而,关于机器学习公平性研究的一个主要问题在文献中仍未得到解答:公众是否理解机器学习公平性的数学定义及其在机器学习应用中的行为?我们通过研究非专家对机器学习公平性的一个流行定义——人口均等(demographic parity)的理解和看法,迈出了回答这个问题的第一步[5]。具体来说,我们开发了一项在线调查来解决以下问题:(1)非技术受众是否理解人口平等的定义和含义?(2)人口统计学在理解中起作用吗?(3)理解和情感是如何关联的?(4)应用场景是否影响理解?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human Comprehension of Fairness in Machine Learning
Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, with notable examples including gender bias in job-related ads [4], racial bias in evaluating names on resumes [3], and racial bias in predicting criminal recidivism [1]. In response, research into algorithmic fairness has grown in both importance and volume over the past few years. Different metrics and approaches to algorithmic fairness have been proposed, many of which are based on prior legal and philosophical concepts [2]. The rapid expansion of this field makes it difficult for professionals to keep up, let alone the general public. Furthermore, misinformation about notions of fairness can have significant legal implications. Computer scientists have largely focused on developing mathematical notions of fairness and incorporating them in fielded ML systems. A much smaller collection of studies has measured public perception of bias and (un)fairness in algorithmic decision-making. However, one major question underlying the study of ML fairness remains unanswered in the literature: Does the general public understand mathematical definitions of ML fairness and their behavior in ML applications? We take a first step towards answering this question by studying non-expert comprehension and perceptions of one popular definition of ML fairness, demographic parity [5]. Specifically, we developed an online survey to address the following: (1) Does a non-technical audience comprehend the definition and implications of demographic parity? (2) Do demographics play a role in comprehension? (3) How are comprehension and sentiment related? (4) Does the application scenario affect comprehension?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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