[Preparation of molecules combining phage lambda and Bacillus subtilis DNAs by the sticky end addition method].

N. Dubinin,A. G. Sliusarenko,T. V. Kapelinskaia,K. Boguspaev,S. I. Gorodetskii

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence

Ramya Akula,Ivan Garibay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.14046

2021-07-14

Computers and Society

Abstract:Algorithms are becoming more widely used in business, and businesses are becoming increasingly concerned that their algorithms will cause significant reputational or financial damage. We should emphasize that any of these damages stem from situations in which the United States lacks strict legislative prohibitions or specified protocols for measuring damages. As a result, governments are enacting legislation and enforcing prohibitions, regulators are fining businesses, and the judiciary is debating whether or not to make artificially intelligent computer models as the decision-makers in the eyes of the law. From autonomous vehicles and banking to medical care, housing, and legal decisions, there will soon be enormous amounts of algorithms that make decisions with limited human interference. Governments, businesses, and society would have an algorithm audit, which would have systematic verification that algorithms are lawful, ethical, and secure, similar to financial audits. A modern market, auditing, and assurance of algorithms developed to professionalize and industrialize AI, machine learning, and related algorithms. Stakeholders of this emerging field include policymakers and regulators, along with industry experts and entrepreneurs. In addition, we foresee audit thresholds and frameworks providing valuable information to all who are concerned with governance and standardization. This paper aims to review the critical areas required for auditing and assurance and spark discussion in this novel field of study and practice.
The algorithm audit: Scoring the algorithms that score us

Shea Brown,Jovana Davidovic,Ali Hasan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720983865

2021-01-01

Abstract:In recent years, the ethical impact of AI has been increasingly scrutinized, with public scandals emerging over biased outcomes, lack of transparency, and the misuse of data. This has led to a growing mistrust of AI and increased calls for mandated ethical audits of algorithms. Current proposals for ethical assessment of algorithms are either too high level to be put into practice without further guidance, or they focus on very specific and technical notions of fairness or transparency that do not consider multiple stakeholders or the broader social context. In this article, we present an auditing framework to guide the ethical assessment of an algorithm. The audit instrument itself is comprised of three elements: a list of possible interests of stakeholders affected by the algorithm, an assessment of metrics that describe key ethically salient features of the algorithm, and a relevancy matrix that connects the assessed metrics to stakeholder interests. The proposed audit instrument yields an ethical evaluation of an algorithm that could be used by regulators and others interested in doing due diligence, while paying careful attention to the complex societal context within which the algorithm is deployed.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems

Khoa Lam,Benjamin Lange,Borhane Blili-Hamelin,Jovana Davidovic,Shea Brown,Ali Hasan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658957

2024-05-28

Abstract:An increasing number of regulations propose AI audits as a mechanism for achieving transparency and accountability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite some converging norms around various forms of AI auditing, auditing for the purpose of compliance and assurance currently lacks agreed-upon practices, procedures, taxonomies, and standards. We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We model elements of this approach after financial auditing practices, and argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that mitigate harms and uphold human values. We discuss the necessary conditions for the criterion audit and provide a procedural blueprint for performing an audit engagement in practice. We illustrate how this framework can be adapted to current regulations by deriving the criteria on which bias audits can be performed for in-scope hiring algorithms, as required by the recently effective New York City Local Law 144 of 2021. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing where robust guardrails against quality assurance issues are only starting to emerge. Our discussion -- informed by experiences in performing these audits in practice -- highlights the critical role that an audit ecosystem plays in ensuring the effectiveness of audits.

Computers and Society
Algorithmic audits of algorithms, and the law

Erwan Le Merrer,Ronan Pons,Gilles Tredan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00343-z

2023-09-27

AI and Ethics

Abstract:Algorithmic decision-making is now widespread, ranging from health care allocation to more common actions such as recommendation or information ranking. The aim to audit these algorithms has grown alongside. In this article, we focus on external audits that are conducted by interacting with the user side of the target algorithm, and hence considered a black box. Yet, the legal framework in which these audits take place is mostly ambiguous to researchers developing them: on the one hand, the legal value of the audit outcome is uncertain; on the other hand, the auditors’ rights and obligations are unclear. The contribution of this article is to articulate two canonical audit forms to law, to shed light on these aspects: 1) the first audit form (we coin the Bobby audit form) checks a predicate against the algorithm, while the second (Sherlock) is looser and opens up to multiple investigations. We find that: Bobby audits are more amenable to prosecution, yet are delicate as operating on real user data. This can lead to rejection by a court (notion of admissibility). Sherlock audits craft data for their operation, most notably to build surrogates of the audited algorithm. It is mostly used for acts for whistleblowing, as even if accepted as proof, the evidential value will be low in practice. 2) these two forms require the prior respect of a proper right to audit, granted by law or by the platform being audited; otherwise, the auditor will be also prone to prosecutions regardless of the audit outcome. This article thus highlights the relation of current audits with law, to structure the growing field of algorithm auditing.

English Else
Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem

Sasha Costanza-Chock,Emma Harvey,Inioluwa Deborah Raji,Martha Czernuszenko,Joy Buolamwini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533213

2023-10-04

Abstract:AI audits are an increasingly popular mechanism for algorithmic accountability; however, they remain poorly defined. Without a clear understanding of audit practices, let alone widely used standards or regulatory guidance, claims that an AI product or system has been audited, whether by first-, second-, or third-party auditors, are difficult to verify and may exacerbate, rather than mitigate, bias and harm. To address this knowledge gap, we provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We share a catalog of individuals (N=438) and organizations (N=189) who engage in algorithmic audits or whose work is directly relevant to algorithmic audits; conduct an anonymous survey of the group (N=152); and interview industry leaders (N=10). We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace, and enumerate common barriers to leveraging algorithmic audits as effective accountability mechanisms. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits, and highlight proposals with wide support from algorithmic auditors as well as areas of debate. Our recommendations have implications for lawmakers, regulators, internal company policymakers, and standards-setting bodies, as well as for auditors. They are: 1) require the owners and operators of AI systems to engage in independent algorithmic audits against clearly defined standards; 2) notify individuals when they are subject to algorithmic decision-making systems; 3) mandate disclosure of key components of audit findings for peer review; 4) consider real-world harm in the audit process, including through standardized harm incident reporting and response mechanisms; 5) directly involve the stakeholders most likely to be harmed by AI systems in the algorithmic audit process; and 6) formalize evaluation and, potentially, accreditation of algorithmic auditors.

Computers and Society
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Jakob Mokander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y

2024-07-07

Abstract:AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Pragmatic auditing: a pilot-driven approach for auditing Machine Learning systems

Djalel Benbouzid,Christiane Plociennik,Laura Lucaj,Mihai Maftei,Iris Merget,Aljoscha Burchardt,Marc P. Hauer,Abdeldjallil Naceri,Patrick van der Smagt

2024-05-22

Abstract:The growing adoption and deployment of Machine Learning (ML) systems came with its share of ethical incidents and societal concerns. It also unveiled the necessity to properly audit these systems in light of ethical principles. For such a novel type of algorithmic auditing to become standard practice, two main prerequisites need to be available: A lifecycle model that is tailored towards transparency and accountability, and a principled risk assessment procedure that allows the proper scoping of the audit. Aiming to make a pragmatic step towards a wider adoption of ML auditing, we present a respective procedure that extends the AI-HLEG guidelines published by the European Commission. Our audit procedure is based on an ML lifecycle model that explicitly focuses on documentation, accountability, and quality assurance; and serves as a common ground for alignment between the auditors and the audited organisation. We describe two pilots conducted on real-world use cases from two different organisations and discuss the shortcomings of ML algorithmic auditing as well as future directions thereof.

Machine Learning
Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing

Inioluwa Deborah Raji,Andrew Smart,Rebecca N. White,Margaret Mitchell,Timnit Gebru,Ben Hutchinson,Jamila Smith-Loud,Daniel Theron,Parker Barnes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.00973

2020-01-03

Computers and Society

Abstract:Rising concern for the societal implications of artificial intelligence systems has inspired a wave of academic and journalistic literature in which deployed systems are audited for harm by investigators from outside the organizations deploying the algorithms. However, it remains challenging for practitioners to identify the harmful repercussions of their own systems prior to deployment, and, once deployed, emergent issues can become difficult or impossible to trace back to their source. In this paper, we introduce a framework for algorithmic auditing that supports artificial intelligence system development end-to-end, to be applied throughout the internal organization development lifecycle. Each stage of the audit yields a set of documents that together form an overall audit report, drawing on an organization's values or principles to assess the fit of decisions made throughout the process. The proposed auditing framework is intended to contribute to closing the accountability gap in the development and deployment of large-scale artificial intelligence systems by embedding a robust process to ensure audit integrity.
Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

Petros Terzis,Michael Veale,Noëlle Gaumann

2024-04-04

Abstract:For almost a decade now, scholarship in and beyond the ACM FAccT community has been focusing on novel and innovative ways and methodologies to audit the functioning of algorithmic systems. Over the years, this research idea and technical project has matured enough to become a regulatory mandate. Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA) have established the framework within which technology corporations and (traditional) auditors will develop the `practice' of algorithmic auditing thereby presaging how this `ecosystem' will develop. In this paper, we systematically review the auditing provisions in the DSA and the OSA in light of observations from the emerging industry of algorithmic auditing. Who is likely to occupy this space? What are some political and ethical tensions that are likely to arise? How are the mandates of `independent auditing' or `the evaluation of the societal context of an algorithmic function' likely to play out in practice? By shaping the picture of the emerging political economy of algorithmic auditing, we draw attention to strategies and cultures of traditional auditors that risk eroding important regulatory pillars of the DSA and the OSA. Importantly, we warn that ambitious research ideas and technical projects of/for algorithmic auditing may end up crashed by the standardising grip of traditional auditors and/or diluted within a complex web of (sub-)contractual arrangements, diverse portfolios, and tight timelines.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI

Jakob Mokander,Luciano Floridi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.00002

2021-04-30

Computers and Society

Abstract:A series of recent developments points towards auditing as a promising mechanism to bridge the gap between principles and practice in AI ethics. Building on ongoing discussions concerning ethics-based auditing, we offer three contributions. First, we argue that ethics-based auditing can improve the quality of decision making, increase user satisfaction, unlock growth potential, enable law-making, and relieve human suffering. Second, we highlight current best practices to support the design and implementation of ethics-based auditing: To be feasible and effective, ethics-based auditing should take the form of a continuous and constructive process, approach ethical alignment from a system perspective, and be aligned with public policies and incentives for ethically desirable behaviour. Third, we identify and discuss the constraints associated with ethics-based auditing. Only by understanding and accounting for these constraints can ethics-based auditing facilitate ethical alignment of AI, while enabling society to reap the full economic and social benefits of automation.
Can everyday AI be ethical. Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms

Philippe Besse,Celine Castets-Renard,Aurelien Garivier,Jean-Michel Loubes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.01729

2018-10-03

Abstract:Combining big data and machine learning algorithms, the power of automatic decision tools induces as much hope as fear. Many recently enacted European legislation (GDPR) and French laws attempt to regulate the use of these tools. Leaving aside the well-identified problems of data confidentiality and impediments to competition, we focus on the risks of discrimination, the problems of transparency and the quality of algorithmic decisions. The detailed perspective of the legal texts, faced with the complexity and opacity of the learning algorithms, reveals the need for important technological disruptions for the detection or reduction of the discrimination risk, and for addressing the right to obtain an explanation of the auto- matic decision. Since trust of the developers and above all of the users (citizens, litigants, customers) is essential, algorithms exploiting personal data must be deployed in a strict ethical framework. In conclusion, to answer this need, we list some ways of controls to be developed: institutional control, ethical charter, external audit attached to the issue of a label.

Other Statistics,Artificial Intelligence
Mapping the Field of Algorithm Auditing: A Systematic Literature Review Identifying Research Trends, Linguistic and Geographical Disparities

Aleksandra Urman,Mykola Makhortykh,Aniko Hannak

2024-01-20

Abstract:The increasing reliance on complex algorithmic systems by online platforms has sparked a growing need for algorithm auditing, a research methodology evaluating these systems' functionality and societal impact. In this paper, we systematically review algorithm auditing studies and identify trends in their methodological approaches, the geographic distribution of authors, and the selection of platforms, languages, geographies, and group-based attributes in the focus of auditing research. We present evidence of a significant skew of research focus toward Western contexts, particularly the US, and a disproportionate reliance on English language data. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency in algorithm auditing studies to focus on a narrow set of group-based attributes, often operationalized in simplified ways, which might obscure more nuanced aspects of algorithmic bias and discrimination. By conducting this review, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of the current state of the algorithm auditing field and identify gaps that need to be addressed for a more inclusive and representative research landscape.

Human-Computer Interaction
From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing

Sarah H. Cen,Rohan Alur

2024-10-07

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly intervening in our lives, raising widespread concern about its unintended and undeclared side effects. These developments have brought attention to the problem of AI auditing: the systematic evaluation and analysis of an AI system, its development, and its behavior relative to a set of predetermined criteria. Auditing can take many forms, including pre-deployment risk assessments, ongoing monitoring, and compliance testing. It plays a critical role in providing assurances to various AI stakeholders, from developers to end users. Audits may, for instance, be used to verify that an algorithm complies with the law, is consistent with industry standards, and meets the developer's claimed specifications. However, there are many operational challenges to AI auditing that complicate its implementation. In this work, we examine a key operational issue in AI auditing: what type of access to an AI system is needed to perform a meaningful audit? Addressing this question has direct policy relevance, as it can inform AI audit guidelines and requirements. We begin by discussing the factors that auditors balance when determining the appropriate type of access, and unpack the benefits and drawbacks of four types of access. We conclude that, at minimum, black-box access -- providing query access to a model without exposing its internal implementation -- should be granted to auditors, as it balances concerns related to trade secrets, data privacy, audit standardization, and audit efficiency. We then suggest a framework for determining how much further access (in addition to black-box access) to grant auditors. We show that auditing can be cast as a natural hypothesis test, draw parallels hypothesis testing and legal procedure, and argue that this framing provides clear and interpretable guidance on audit implementation.

Computers and Society,Machine Learning
Designing an ML Auditing Criteria Catalog as Starting Point for the Development of a Framework

Markus Schwarz,Ludwig Christian Hinske,Ulrich Mansmann,Fady Albashiti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3375763

IF: 3.9

2024-03-22

IEEE Access

Abstract:Although AI algorithms and applications become more and popular in the healthcare sector, only few institutions have an operational AI strategy. Identifying the best suited processes for ML algorithm implementation and adoption is a big challenge. Also, raising human confidence in AI systems is elementary to building trustworthy, socially beneficial and responsible AI. A commonly agreed AI auditing framework that provides best practices and tools could help speeding up the adoption process. In this paper, we first highlight important concepts in the field of AI auditing and then restructure and subsume them into an ML auditing core criteria catalog. We conducted a scoping study where we analyzed sources being associated with the term "Auditable AI" in a qualitative way. We utilized best practices from Mayring (2000), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Bortz and Döring (2006). Based on referrals, additional relevant white papers and sources in the field of AI auditing were also included. The literature base was compared using inductively constructed categories. Afterwards, the findings were reflected on and synthesized into a resulting ML auditing core criteria catalog. The catalog is grouped into the categories: Conceptual Basics, Data & Algorithm Design and Assessment Metrics. As a practical guide, it consists of 30 questions developed to cover the mentioned categories and to guide ML implementation teams. Our consensus-based ML auditing criteria catalog is intended as a starting point for the development of evaluation strategies by specific stakeholders. We believe it will be beneficial to healthcare organizations that have been or will start implementing ML algorithms. Not only to help them being prepared for any upcoming legally required audit activities, but also to create better, well-perceived and accepted products. Potential limitations could be overcome by utilizing the proposed catalog in practice on real use cases to expose gaps and to further improve the catalog. Thus, this paper is seen as a starting point towards the development of a framework, where essential technical components can be specified.

computer science, information systems,telecommunications,engineering, electrical & electronic
Public vs Private Bodies: Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations and Audits? A Three-Step Logic Based on Case Studies of High-Risk Industries

Merlin Stein,Milan Gandhi,Theresa Kriecherbauer,Amin Oueslati,Robert Trager

2024-09-04

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institutes and governments worldwide are deciding whether they evaluate and audit advanced AI themselves, support a private auditor ecosystem or do both. Auditing regimes have been established in a wide range of industry contexts to monitor and evaluate firms' compliance with regulation. Auditing is a necessary governance tool to understand and manage the risks of a technology. This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform (i) who should audit which parts of advanced AI; and (ii) how much capacity public bodies may need to audit advanced AI effectively. First, the effective responsibility distribution between public and private auditors depends heavily on specific industry and audit conditions. On the basis of advanced AI's risk profile, the sensitivity of information involved in the auditing process, and the high costs of verifying safety and benefit claims of AI Labs, we recommend that public bodies become directly involved in safety critical, especially gray- and white-box, AI model evaluations. Governance and security audits, which are well-established in other industry contexts, as well as black-box model evaluations, may be more efficiently provided by a private market of evaluators and auditors under public oversight. Secondly, to effectively fulfill their role in advanced AI audits, public bodies need extensive access to models and facilities. Public bodies' capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration, potentially requiring 100s of employees for auditing in large jurisdictions like the EU or US, like in nuclear safety and life sciences.

Computers and Society
Systematizing Audit in Algorithmic Recruitment

Emre Kazim,Adriano Soares Koshiyama,Airlie Hilliard,Roseline Polle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9030046

IF: 3.1759

2021-09-17

Journal of Intelligence

Abstract:Business psychologists study and assess relevant individual differences, such as intelligence and personality, in the context of work. Such studies have informed the development of artificial intelligence systems (AI) designed to measure individual differences. This has been capitalized on by companies who have developed AI-driven recruitment solutions that include aggregation of appropriate candidates (Hiretual), interviewing through a chatbot (Paradox), video interview assessment (MyInterview), and CV-analysis (Textio), as well as estimation of psychometric characteristics through image-(Traitify) and game-based assessments (HireVue) and video interviews (Cammio). However, driven by concern that such high-impact technology must be used responsibly due to the potential for unfair hiring to result from the algorithms used by these tools, there is an active effort towards proving mechanisms of governance for such automation. In this article, we apply a systematic algorithm audit framework in the context of the ethically critical industry of algorithmic recruitment systems, exploring how audit assessments on AI-driven systems can be used to assure that such systems are being responsibly deployed in a fair and well-governed manner. We outline sources of risk for the use of algorithmic hiring tools, suggest the most appropriate opportunities for audits to take place, recommend ways to measure bias in algorithms, and discuss the transparency of algorithms.
Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits

Jack Bandy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.04256

2021-02-03

Computers and Society

Abstract:While algorithm audits are growing rapidly in commonality and public importance, relatively little scholarly work has gone toward synthesizing prior work and strategizing future research in the area. This systematic literature review aims to do just that, following PRISMA guidelines in a review of over 500 English articles that yielded 62 algorithm audit studies. The studies are synthesized and organized primarily by behavior (discrimination, distortion, exploitation, and misjudgement), with codes also provided for domain (e.g. search, vision, advertising, etc.), organization (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.), and audit method (e.g. sock puppet, direct scrape, crowdsourcing, etc.). The review shows how previous audit studies have exposed public-facing algorithms exhibiting problematic behavior, such as search algorithms culpable of distortion and advertising algorithms culpable of discrimination. Based on the studies reviewed, it also suggests some behaviors (e.g. discrimination on the basis of intersectional identities), domains (e.g. advertising algorithms), methods (e.g. code auditing), and organizations (e.g. Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn) that call for future audit attention. The paper concludes by offering the common ingredients of successful audits, and discussing algorithm auditing in the context of broader research working toward algorithmic justice.
Auditing the AI auditors: A framework for evaluating fairness and bias in high stakes AI predictive models.

Richard N. Landers,Tara S. Behrend

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000972

IF: 16.358

2022-02-14

American Psychologist

Abstract: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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

psychology, multidisciplinary
The Right Tool for the Job: Open-Source Auditing Tools in Machine Learning

Cherie M Poland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.10613

IF: 5.414

2022-06-20

Machine Learning

Abstract:In recent years, discussions about fairness in machine learning, AI ethics and algorithm audits have increased. Many entities have developed framework guidance to establish a baseline rubric for fairness and accountability. However, in spite of increased discussions and multiple frameworks, algorithm and data auditing still remain difficult to execute in practice. Many open-source auditing tools are available, but users aren't always aware of the tools, what they are useful for, or how to access them. Model auditing and evaluation are not frequently emphasized skills in machine learning. There are also legal reasons for the proactive adoption of these tools that extend beyond the desire for greater fairness in machine learning. There are positive social issues of public perception and goodwill that matter in our highly connected global society. Greater awareness of these tools and the reasons for actively utilizing them may be helpful to the entire continuum of programmers, data scientists, engineers, researchers, users and consumers of AI and machine learning products. It is important for everyone to better understand the input and output differentials, how they are occurring, and what can be done to promote FATE (fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics) in machine- and deep learning. The ability to freely access open-source auditing tools removes barriers to fairness assessment at the most basic levels of machine learning. This paper aims to reinforce the urgent need to actually use these tools and provides motivations for doing so. The exemplary tools highlighted herein are open-source with software or code-base repositories available that can be used immediately by anyone worldwide.
Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing

Shiqi Fang,Zexun Chen,Jake Ansell

2024-09-06

Abstract:With the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act taking effect on 1 August 2024, high-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. This paper addresses a crucial question: how can we scientifically audit algorithmic fairness? Current methods typically remain at the basic detection stage of auditing, without accounting for more complex scenarios. We propose a novel framework, ``peer-induced fairness'', which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy, creating a reliable and robust tool for auditing algorithmic fairness. Our framework is universal, adaptable to various domains, and capable of handling different levels of data quality, including skewed distributions. Moreover, it can distinguish whether adverse decisions result from algorithmic discrimination or inherent limitations of the subjects, thereby enhancing transparency. This framework can serve as both a self-assessment tool for AI developers and an external assessment tool for auditors to ensure compliance with the EU AI Act. We demonstrate its utility in small and medium-sized enterprises access to finance, uncovering significant unfairness-41.51% of micro-firms face discrimination compared to non-micro firms. These findings highlight the framework's potential for broader applications in ensuring equitable AI-driven decision-making.

Applications,Computers and Society,Computational Finance,Statistical Finance,Machine Learning

[Preparation of molecules combining phage lambda and Bacillus subtilis DNAs by the sticky end addition method].

Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence

The algorithm audit: Scoring the algorithms that score us

A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems

Algorithmic audits of algorithms, and the law

Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem

Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Pragmatic auditing: a pilot-driven approach for auditing Machine Learning systems

Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing

Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI

Can everyday AI be ethical. Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms

Mapping the Field of Algorithm Auditing: A Systematic Literature Review Identifying Research Trends, Linguistic and Geographical Disparities

From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing

Designing an ML Auditing Criteria Catalog as Starting Point for the Development of a Framework

Public vs Private Bodies: Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations and Audits? A Three-Step Logic Based on Case Studies of High-Risk Industries

Systematizing Audit in Algorithmic Recruitment

Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits

Auditing the AI auditors: A framework for evaluating fairness and bias in high stakes AI predictive models.

The Right Tool for the Job: Open-Source Auditing Tools in Machine Learning

Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing