Conceptual Foundations on Debiasing for Machine Learning-Based Software

Machine learning (ML)-based software’s deployment has raised serious concerns about its pervasive and harmful consequences for users, business, and society inflicted through bias. While approaches to address bias are increasingly recognized and developed, our understanding of debiasing remains nascent. Research has yet to provide a comprehensive coverage of this vast growing field, much of which is not embedded in theoretical understanding. Conceptualizing and structuring the nature, effect, and implementation of debiasing instruments could provide necessary guidance for practitioners investing in debiasing efforts. We develop a taxonomy that classifies debiasing instrument characteristics into seven key dimensions. We evaluate and refine our taxonomy through nine experts and apply our taxonomy to three actual debiasing instruments, drawing lessons for the design and choice of appropriate instruments. Bridging the gaps between our conceptual understanding of debiasing for ML-based software and its organizational implementation, we discuss contributions and future research.

[1]  Robert C. Seamans,et al.  The Cost of Ethical AI Development for AI Startups , 2022, AIES.

[2]  M. Saar-Tsechansky,et al.  Algorithmic fairness in business analytics: Directions for research and practice , 2022, Production and Operations Management.

[3]  D. Herhausen,et al.  Overcoming the pitfalls and perils of algorithms: A classification of machine learning biases and mitigation methods , 2022, Journal of Business Research.

[4]  Jamy J. Li,et al.  FMEA-AI: AI fairness impact assessment using failure mode and effects analysis , 2022, AI and Ethics.

[5]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning , 2019, ACM Comput. Surv..

[6]  Gerald C. Kane,et al.  Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human-ML Augmentation , 2021, MIS Q..

[7]  Motahhare Eslami,et al.  Everyday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic Behaviors , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Benjamin van Giffen,et al.  Managing Bias in Machine Learning Projects , 2021, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[9]  Marcus Tomalin,et al.  The practical ethics of bias reduction in machine translation: why domain adaptation is better than data debiasing , 2021, Ethics and Information Technology.

[10]  J. Guttag,et al.  A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle , 2019, EAAMO.

[11]  Johannes Fürnkranz,et al.  A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on interpretation of rule-based machine learning models , 2018, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Datasheets for datasets , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[13]  Jerome Geyer‐Klingeberg,et al.  The Potential of Technology-Mediated Learning Processes: A Taxonomy and Research Agenda for Educational Process Mining , 2021, ICIS.

[14]  Y. Zen,et al.  The implicit memory bias during pandemic COVID-19 in university students , 2021 .

[15]  Patrick Mikalef,et al.  Artificial intelligence in information systems research: A systematic literature review and research agenda , 2021, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[16]  T. Davenport,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Current State and Future Opportunities , 2020 .

[17]  Daniel J. Hsu,et al.  Biased Programmers? Or Biased Data? A Field Experiment in Operationalizing AI Ethics , 2020, EC.

[18]  Bo Cowgill,et al.  Algorithmic Social Engineering , 2020 .

[19]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing , 2020, FAT*.

[20]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[21]  Bryan C. Semaan,et al.  For You, or For"You"? , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Karlheinz Renner,et al.  Was ist ein Interview? , 2020 .

[23]  Philipp Mayring Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse , 2019, Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie.

[24]  N. N. Loideáin,et al.  Addressing indirect discrimination and gender stereotypes in AI virtual personal assistants: the role of international human rights law , 2019 .

[25]  Christopher Joseph Pal,et al.  Towards Standardization of Data Licenses: The Montreal Data License , 2019, ArXiv.

[26]  Daniela Rus,et al.  Uncovering and Mitigating Algorithmic Bias through Learned Latent Structure , 2019, AIES.

[27]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Model Cards for Model Reporting , 2018, FAT.

[28]  Franco Turini,et al.  A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models , 2018, ACM Comput. Surv..

[29]  Carlos Castillo,et al.  Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries , 2019, Front. Big Data.

[30]  Tobias Baer Understand, Manage, and Prevent Algorithmic Bias , 2019, Apress.

[31]  Dennis Kundisch,et al.  Because Your Taxonomy is Worth IT: towards a Framework for Taxonomy Evaluation , 2019, ECIS.

[32]  Emily M. Bender,et al.  Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science , 2018, TACL.

[33]  Shari Trewin,et al.  AI Fairness for People with Disabilities: Point of View , 2018, ArXiv.

[34]  Solon Barocas,et al.  Prediction-Based Decisions and Fairness: A Catalogue of Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions , 2018, 1811.07867.

[35]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Soft ethics, the governance of the digital and the General Data Protection Regulation , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[36]  Alex S. Taylor,et al.  Let's Talk About Race: Identity, Chatbots, and AI , 2018, CHI.

[37]  Abolfazl Asudeh,et al.  A Nutritional Label for Rankings , 2018, SIGMOD Conference.

[38]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  An experimental evaluation of a de-biasing intervention for professional software developers , 2018, SAC.

[39]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[40]  Solon Barocas,et al.  Engaging the ethics of data science in practice , 2017, Commun. ACM.

[41]  Vasco Correia,et al.  Accountability Breeds Response-Ability: Contextual Debiasing and Accountability in Argumentation , 2017, CONTEXT.

[42]  Kush R. Varshney,et al.  Optimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention , 2017, NIPS.

[43]  Elanor F. Williams,et al.  Ethically Deployed Defaults: Transparency and Consumer Protection through Disclosure and Preference Articulation , 2016 .

[44]  Thomas Hess,et al.  What Does a Chief Digital Officer Do? Managerial Tasks and Roles of a New C-Level Position in the Context of Digital Transformation , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

[45]  Thomas Hess,et al.  Cognitive Biases in Information Systems Research: a scientometric Analysis , 2014, ECIS.

[46]  Jan Muntermann,et al.  A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems , 2013, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Elfi Furtmueller,et al.  Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature , 2013, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[48]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Software Development Estimation Biases: The Role of Interdependence , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[49]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. , 2010 .

[50]  Toon Calders,et al.  Classifying without discriminating , 2009, 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication.

[51]  Craig R. Carter,et al.  DEBIASING STRATEGIES IN SUPPLY MANAGEMENT DECISION‐MAKING , 2009 .

[52]  Paul L. Bannerman,et al.  Risk and risk management in software projects: A reassessment , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..

[53]  Hsinchih Huang,et al.  A Sustainable Systems Development Lifecycle , 2008, PACIS.

[54]  Andrew Nestingen,et al.  Special Issue - Call for Papers , 2004, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[55]  L. Rikkers,et al.  The bandwagon effect , 2002, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[56]  Rüdiger Wirth,et al.  CRISP-DM: Towards a Standard Process Model for Data Mining , 2000 .

[57]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  Melding Information Systems Evaluation with the Information Systems Development Life-Cycle , 2000, ECIS.

[58]  Gideon Keren,et al.  On The Calibration of Probability Judgments: Some Critical Comments and Alternative Perspectives , 1997 .

[59]  L. Dawson,et al.  Ethical Differences Between Men and Women in The Sales Profession , 1997 .

[60]  Rebecca Green,et al.  Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques , 1996 .

[61]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[62]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  What Is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry , 1992 .

[63]  R. Peterson,et al.  Concerns of college students regarding business ethics: A replication , 1991 .

[64]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Systems development in information systems research , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[65]  Gideon Keren,et al.  Cognitive Aids and Debiasing Methods: CAN Cognitive Pills Cure Cognitive Ills? , 1990 .

[66]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[67]  C. W. Park,et al.  Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics , 1981 .

[68]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.