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?

[1]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[2]  R. Sitgreaves Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[3]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics , 2022 .

[5]  Bart Baesens,et al.  An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[6]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Fairness through awareness , 2011, ITCS '12.

[7]  Carlos Eduardo Scheidegger,et al.  Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact , 2014, KDD.

[8]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Providing information for decision making: Contrasting description and simulation , 2015 .

[9]  Michael Carl Tschantz,et al.  Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings , 2014, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[10]  Andrew D. Selbst,et al.  Big Data's Disparate Impact , 2016 .

[11]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[12]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , 2016, NIPS.

[13]  Egan J. Chernoff,et al.  Research on Teaching and Learning Probability , 2016 .

[14]  Matt J. Kusner,et al.  Counterfactual Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[15]  Michael Carl Tschantz,et al.  Exploring User Perceptions of Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising , 2017, USENIX Security Symposium.

[16]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments , 2016, Big Data.

[17]  Michael A. Osborne,et al.  The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? , 2017 .

[18]  Arvind Narayanan,et al.  Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases , 2016, Science.

[19]  Min Kyung Lee Algorithmic Mediation in Group Decisions: Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmically Mediated vs. Discussion-Based Social Division , 2017, CSCW.

[20]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  On Fairness and Calibration , 2017, NIPS.

[21]  Reuben Binns,et al.  Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy , 2017, FAT.

[22]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness , 2018, CHI.

[23]  Jun Zhao,et al.  'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions , 2018, CHI.

[24]  Zachary Chase Lipton The mythos of model interpretability , 2016, ACM Queue.

[25]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction , 2018, WWW.

[26]  Min Kyung Lee Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management , 2018, Big Data Soc..