-
Long-Term Fairness Inquiries and Pursuits in Machine Learning: A Survey of Notions, Methods, and Challenges
Authors:
Usman Gohar,
Zeyu Tang,
Jialu Wang,
Kun Zhang,
Peter L. Spirtes,
Yang Liu,
Lu Cheng
Abstract:
The widespread integration of Machine Learning systems in daily life, particularly in high-stakes domains, has raised concerns about the fairness implications. While prior works have investigated static fairness measures, recent studies reveal that automated decision-making has long-term implications and that off-the-shelf fairness approaches may not serve the purpose of achieving long-term fairne…
▽ More
The widespread integration of Machine Learning systems in daily life, particularly in high-stakes domains, has raised concerns about the fairness implications. While prior works have investigated static fairness measures, recent studies reveal that automated decision-making has long-term implications and that off-the-shelf fairness approaches may not serve the purpose of achieving long-term fairness. Additionally, the existence of feedback loops and the interaction between models and the environment introduces additional complexities that may deviate from the initial fairness goals. In this survey, we review existing literature on long-term fairness from different perspectives and present a taxonomy for long-term fairness studies. We highlight key challenges and consider future research directions, analyzing both current issues and potential further explorations.
△ Less
Submitted 10 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons
Authors:
Bertie Vidgen,
Adarsh Agrawal,
Ahmed M. Ahmed,
Victor Akinwande,
Namir Al-Nuaimi,
Najla Alfaraj,
Elie Alhajjar,
Lora Aroyo,
Trupti Bavalatti,
Max Bartolo,
Borhane Blili-Hamelin,
Kurt Bollacker,
Rishi Bomassani,
Marisa Ferrara Boston,
Siméon Campos,
Kal Chakra,
Canyu Chen,
Cody Coleman,
Zacharie Delpierre Coudert,
Leon Derczynski,
Debojyoti Dutta,
Ian Eisenberg,
James Ezick,
Heather Frase,
Brian Fuller
, et al. (75 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-pu…
▽ More
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.
△ Less
Submitted 13 May, 2024; v1 submitted 18 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Towards Engineering Fair and Equitable Software Systems for Managing Low-Altitude Airspace Authorizations
Authors:
Usman Gohar,
Michael C. Hunter,
Agnieszka Marczak-Czajka,
Robyn R. Lutz,
Myra B. Cohen,
Jane Cleland-Huang
Abstract:
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) have gained widespread adoption across a diverse range of applications. This has introduced operational complexities within shared airspaces and an increase in reported incidents, raising safety concerns. In response, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system to control access to airspace based on an sU…
▽ More
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) have gained widespread adoption across a diverse range of applications. This has introduced operational complexities within shared airspaces and an increase in reported incidents, raising safety concerns. In response, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system to control access to airspace based on an sUAS's predicted ability to safely complete its mission. However, a fully automated system capable of swiftly approving or denying flight requests can be prone to bias and must consider safety, transparency, and fairness to diverse stakeholders. In this paper, we present an initial study that explores stakeholders' perspectives on factors that should be considered in an automated system. Results indicate flight characteristics and environmental conditions were perceived as most important but pilot and drone capabilities should also be considered. Further, several respondents indicated an aversion to any AI-supported automation, highlighting the need for full transparency in automated decision-making. Results provide a societal perspective on the challenges of automating UTM flight authorization decisions and help frame the ongoing design of a solution acceptable to the broader sUAS community.
△ Less
Submitted 3 February, 2024; v1 submitted 14 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society
Authors:
Irene Solaiman,
Zeerak Talat,
William Agnew,
Lama Ahmad,
Dylan Baker,
Su Lin Blodgett,
Canyu Chen,
Hal Daumé III,
Jesse Dodge,
Isabella Duan,
Ellie Evans,
Felix Friedrich,
Avijit Ghosh,
Usman Gohar,
Sara Hooker,
Yacine Jernite,
Ria Kalluri,
Alberto Lusoli,
Alina Leidinger,
Michelle Lin,
Xiuzhu Lin,
Sasha Luccioni,
Jennifer Mickel,
Margaret Mitchell,
Jessica Newman
, et al. (6 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categor…
▽ More
Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2024; v1 submitted 9 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challenges
Authors:
Usman Gohar,
Lu Cheng
Abstract:
The widespread adoption of Machine Learning systems, especially in more decision-critical applications such as criminal sentencing and bank loans, has led to increased concerns about fairness implications. Algorithms and metrics have been developed to mitigate and measure these discriminations. More recently, works have identified a more challenging form of bias called intersectional bias, which e…
▽ More
The widespread adoption of Machine Learning systems, especially in more decision-critical applications such as criminal sentencing and bank loans, has led to increased concerns about fairness implications. Algorithms and metrics have been developed to mitigate and measure these discriminations. More recently, works have identified a more challenging form of bias called intersectional bias, which encompasses multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender, together. In this survey, we review the state-of-the-art in intersectional fairness. We present a taxonomy for intersectional notions of fairness and mitigation. Finally, we identify the key challenges and provide researchers with guidelines for future directions.
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 2023; v1 submitted 11 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Towards Understanding Fairness and its Composition in Ensemble Machine Learning
Authors:
Usman Gohar,
Sumon Biswas,
Hridesh Rajan
Abstract:
Machine Learning (ML) software has been widely adopted in modern society, with reported fairness implications for minority groups based on race, sex, age, etc. Many recent works have proposed methods to measure and mitigate algorithmic bias in ML models. The existing approaches focus on single classifier-based ML models. However, real-world ML models are often composed of multiple independent or d…
▽ More
Machine Learning (ML) software has been widely adopted in modern society, with reported fairness implications for minority groups based on race, sex, age, etc. Many recent works have proposed methods to measure and mitigate algorithmic bias in ML models. The existing approaches focus on single classifier-based ML models. However, real-world ML models are often composed of multiple independent or dependent learners in an ensemble (e.g., Random Forest), where the fairness composes in a non-trivial way. How does fairness compose in ensembles? What are the fairness impacts of the learners on the ultimate fairness of the ensemble? Can fair learners result in an unfair ensemble? Furthermore, studies have shown that hyperparameters influence the fairness of ML models. Ensemble hyperparameters are more complex since they affect how learners are combined in different categories of ensembles. Understanding the impact of ensemble hyperparameters on fairness will help programmers design fair ensembles. Today, we do not understand these fully for different ensemble algorithms. In this paper, we comprehensively study popular real-world ensembles: bagging, boosting, stacking and voting. We have developed a benchmark of 168 ensemble models collected from Kaggle on four popular fairness datasets. We use existing fairness metrics to understand the composition of fairness. Our results show that ensembles can be designed to be fairer without using mitigation techniques. We also identify the interplay between fairness composition and data characteristics to guide fair ensemble design. Finally, our benchmark can be leveraged for further research on fair ensembles. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first and largest studies on fairness composition in ensembles yet presented in the literature.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2023; v1 submitted 8 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
