Auditing the AI Auditors: A Framework for Evaluating Fairness and Bias in High Stakes AI Predictive Models

被引:72
作者
Landers, Richard N. [1 ]
Behrend, Tara S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Psychol, N-218,75 E River Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Purdue Univ, Dept Psychol Sci, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
关键词
audit; bias; psychology; machine learning; artificial intelligence; RISK-ASSESSMENT; SELECTION; DECISIONS; JUDGMENTS; VALIDITY; JUSTICE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1037/amp0000972
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Researchers, governments, ethics watchdogs, and the public are increasingly voicing concerns about unfairness and bias in artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision tools. Psychology's more-than-a-century of research on the measurement of psychological traits and the prediction of human behavior can benefit such conversations, yet psychological researchers often find themselves excluded due to mismatches in terminology, values, and goals across disciplines. In the present paper, we begin to build a shared interdisciplinary understanding of AI fairness and bias by first presenting three major lenses, which vary in focus and prototypicality by discipline, from which to consider relevant issues: (a) individual attitudes, (b) legality, ethicality, and morality, and (c) embedded meanings within technical domains. Using these lenses, we next present psychological audits as a standardized approach for evaluating the fairness and bias of AI systems that make predictions about humans across disciplinary perspectives. We present 12 crucial components to audits across three categories: (a) components related to AI models in terms of their source data, design, development, features, processes, and outputs, (b) components related to how information about models and their applications are presented, discussed, and understood from the perspectives of those employing the algorithm, those affected by decisions made using its predictions, and third-party observers, and (c) meta-components that must be considered across all other auditing components, including cultural context, respect for persons, and the integrity of individual research designs used to support all model developer claims. Public Significance Statement Although artificial intelligence (AI) is now being used to make decisions about people's employment, education, healthcare, and experiences with law enforcement, external evaluators do not often agree on what is necessary to show that an AI is "unbiased" or "fair." This is in part because "bias" and "fairness" mean different things to different people. We created a framework for auditing that respects these differences in pursuit of better, fairer AI.
引用
收藏
页码:36 / 49
页数:14
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]   Justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection [J].
Acikgoz, Yalcin ;
Davison, Kristl H. ;
Compagnone, Maira ;
Laske, Matt .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, 2020, 28 (04) :399-416
[2]  
American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, STAND ED PSYCH TESTS
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Am Psychol, V65, P493, DOI 10.1037/a0020168
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2020, SALE AUTOMATED EMPLO
[5]   Big Data's Disparate Impact [J].
Barocas, Solon ;
Selbst, Andrew D. .
CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, 2016, 104 (03) :671-732
[6]   Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the classical bias-variance trade-off [J].
Belkin, Mikhail ;
Hsu, Daniel ;
Ma, Siyuan ;
Mandal, Soumik .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2019, 116 (32) :15849-15854
[7]   Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement [J].
Berk, Richard A. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF CRIMINOLOGY, VOL 4, 2021, 4 :209-237
[8]   Differential Validity and Differential Prediction of Cognitive Ability Tests: Understanding Test Bias in the Employment Context [J].
Berry, Christopher M. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL 2, 2015, 2 :435-463
[9]   Privacy at Work: A Review and a Research Agenda for a Contested Terrain [J].
Bhave, Devasheesh P. ;
Teo, Laurel H. ;
Dalal, Reeshad S. .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2020, 46 (01) :127-164
[10]   VALIDITY OF PERSONNEL DECISIONS - A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFERENTIAL AND EVIDENTIAL BASES [J].
BINNING, JF ;
BARRETT, GV .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1989, 74 (03) :478-494