Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices
353
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Manish Raghavan
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
There has been rapidly growing interest in the use of algorithms in hiring, especially as a means to address or mitigate bias. Yet, to date, little is known about how these methods are used in practice. How are algorithmic assessments built, validated, and examined for bias? In this work, we document and analyze the claims and practices of companies offering algorithms for employment assessment. In particular, we identify vendors of algorithmic pre-employment assessments (i.e., algorithms to screen candidates), document what they have disclosed about their development and validation procedures, and evaluate their practices, focusing particularly on efforts to detect and mitigate bias. Our analysis considers both technical and legal perspectives. Technically, we consider the various choices vendors make regarding data collection and prediction targets, and explore the risks and trade-offs that these choices pose. We also discuss how algorithmic de-biasing techniques interface with, and create challenges for, antidiscrimination law.
rate research
Read More
In recent years the ubiquitous deployment of AI has posed great concerns in regards to algorithmic bias, discrimination, and fairness. Compared to traditional forms of bias or discrimination caused by humans, algorithmic bias generated by AI is more abstract and unintuitive therefore more difficult to explain and mitigate. A clear gap exists in the current literature on evaluating and mitigating bias in pruned neural networks. In this work, we strive to tackle the challenging issues of evaluating, mitigating, and explaining induced bias in pruned neural networks. Our paper makes three contributions. First, we propose two simple yet effective metrics, Combined Error Variance (CEV) and Symmetric Distance Error (SDE), to quantitatively evaluate the induced bias prevention quality of pruned models. Second, we demonstrate that knowledge distillation can mitigate induced bias in pruned neural networks, even with unbalanced datasets. Third, we reveal that model similarity has strong correlations with pruning induced bias, which provides a powerful method to explain why bias occurs in pruned neural networks. Our code is available at https://github.com/codestar12/pruning-distilation-bias
Society increasingly relies on machine learning models for automated decision making. Yet, efficiency gains from automation have come paired with concern for algorithmic discrimination that can systematize inequality. Recent work has proposed optimal post-processing methods that randomize classification decisions for a fraction of individuals, in order to achieve fairness measures related to parity in errors and calibration. These methods, however, have raised concern due to the information inefficiency, intra-group unfairness, and Pareto sub-optimality they entail. The present work proposes an alternative active framework for fair classification, where, in deployment, a decision-maker adaptively acquires information according to the needs of different groups or individuals, towards balancing disparities in classification performance. We propose two such methods, where information collection is adapted to group- and individual-level needs respectively. We show on real-world datasets that these can achieve: 1) calibration and single error parity (e.g., equal opportunity); and 2) parity in both false positive and false negative rates (i.e., equal odds). Moreover, we show that by leveraging their additional degree of freedom, active approaches can substantially outperform randomization-based classifiers previously considered optimal, while avoiding limitations such as intra-group unfairness.
The performance of a computer vision model depends on the size and quality of its training data. Recent studies have unveiled previously-unknown composition biases in common image datasets which then lead to skewed model outputs, and have proposed methods to mitigate these biases. However, most existing works assume that human-generated annotations can be considered gold-standard and unbiased. In this paper, we reveal that this assumption can be problematic, and that special care should be taken to prevent models from learning such annotation biases. We focus on facial expression recognition and compare the label biases between lab-controlled and in-the-wild datasets. We demonstrate that many expression datasets contain significant annotation biases between genders, especially when it comes to the happy and angry expressions, and that traditional methods cannot fully mitigate such biases in trained models. To remove expression annotation bias, we propose an AU-Calibrated Facial Expression Recognition (AUC-FER) framework that utilizes facial action units (AUs) and incorporates the triplet loss into the objective function. Experimental results suggest that the proposed method is more effective in removing expression annotation bias than existing techniques.
Algorithms that favor popular items are used to help us select among many choices, from engaging articles on a social media news feed to songs and books that others have purchased, and from top-raked search engine results to highly-cited scientific papers. The goal of these algorithms is to identify high-quality items such as reliable news, beautiful movies, prestigious information sources, and important discoveries --- in short, high-quality content should rank at the top. Prior work has shown that choosing what is popular may amplify random fluctuations and ultimately lead to sub-optimal rankings. Nonetheless, it is often assumed that recommending what is popular will help high-quality content bubble up in practice. Here we identify the conditions in which popularity may be a viable proxy for quality content by studying a simple model of cultural market endowed with an intrinsic notion of quality. A parameter representing the cognitive cost of exploration controls the critical trade-off between quality and popularity. We find a regime of intermediate exploration cost where an optimal balance exists, such that choosing what is popular actually promotes high-quality items to the top. Outside of these limits, however, popularity bias is more likely to hinder quality. These findings clarify the effects of algorithmic popularity bias on quality outcomes, and may inform the design of more principled mechanisms for techno-social cultural markets.
Conventional algorithmic fairness is West-centric, as seen in its sub-groups, values, and methods. In this paper, we de-center algorithmic fairness and analyse AI power in India. Based on 36 qualitative interviews and a discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments in India, we find that several assumptions of algorithmic fairness are challenged. We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration. We contend that localising model fairness alone can be window dressing in India, where the distance between models and oppressed communities is large. Instead, we re-imagine algorithmic fairness in India and provide a roadmap to re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
