Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Impact of Explanations on Fairness in Human-AI Decision-Making: Protected vs Proxy Features (2310.08617v2)

Published 12 Oct 2023 in cs.AI and cs.HC

Abstract: AI systems have been known to amplify biases in real-world data. Explanations may help human-AI teams address these biases for fairer decision-making. Typically, explanations focus on salient input features. If a model is biased against some protected group, explanations may include features that demonstrate this bias, but when biases are realized through proxy features, the relationship between this proxy feature and the protected one may be less clear to a human. In this work, we study the effect of the presence of protected and proxy features on participants' perception of model fairness and their ability to improve demographic parity over an AI alone. Further, we examine how different treatments -- explanations, model bias disclosure and proxy correlation disclosure -- affect fairness perception and parity. We find that explanations help people detect direct but not indirect biases. Additionally, regardless of bias type, explanations tend to increase agreement with model biases. Disclosures can help mitigate this effect for indirect biases, improving both unfairness recognition and decision-making fairness. We hope that our findings can help guide further research into advancing explanations in support of fair human-AI decision-making.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (65)
  1. Machine Bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
  2. Does the Whole Exceed Its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 81, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445717
  3. Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104, 3 (2016), 671–732. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24758720
  4. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion 58 (2020), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
  5. Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57, 1 (1995), 289–300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101
  6. Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. American Economic Review 94, 4 (September 2004), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
  7. ‘It’s Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage’: Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951
  8. Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Cagliari, Italy) (IUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377498
  9. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-Assisted Decision-Making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 188 (apr 2021), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
  10. Feature-Based Explanations Don’t Help People Detect Misclassifications of Online Toxicity. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, 1 (May 2020), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7282
  11. Supporting High-Uncertainty Decisions through AI and Logic-Style Explanations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Sydney, NSW, Australia) (IUI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584080
  12. Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations. arXiv:2301.07255 [cs.HC]
  13. Explaining Decision-Making Algorithms through UI: Strategies to Help Non-Expert Stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300789
  14. Are Two Heads Better Than One in AI-Assisted Decision Making? Comparing the Behavior and Performance of Groups and Individuals in Human-AI Collaborative Recidivism Risk Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 348, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581015
  15. Chun-Wei Chiang and Ming Yin. 2021. You’d Better Stop! Understanding Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models under Covariate Shift. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 (Virtual Event, United Kingdom) (WebSci ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462487
  16. Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments. Big Data 5, 2 (2017), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0047 PMID: 28632438.
  17. Arun Das and Paul Rad. 2020. Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Survey. CoRR abs/2006.11371 (2020). arXiv:2006.11371 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11371
  18. Explaining Models: An Empirical Study of How Explanations Impact Fairness Judgment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Marina del Ray, California) (IUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302310
  19. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1702.08608
  20. Fairness in Deep Learning: A Computational Perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems 36, 4 (2021), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2020.3000681
  21. The Influences of Task Design on Crowdsourced Judgement: A Case Study of Recidivism Risk Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 (Virtual Event, Lyon, France) (WWW ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1685–1696. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512239
  22. Fairness through Awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (Cambridge, Massachusetts) (ITCS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090255
  23. The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 6 (2003), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7 Trust and Technology.
  24. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1978. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, § 1607.4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.4 43 FR 38295, 38312, Aug. 25, 1978, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981.
  25. Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Sydney, NSW, Australia) (KDD ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2783311
  26. Shi Feng and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. What Can AI Do for Me? Evaluating Machine Learning Interpretations in Cooperative Play. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Marina del Ray, California) (IUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302265
  27. Krzysztof Z. Gajos and Lena Mamykina. 2022. Do People Engage Cognitively with AI? Impact of AI Assistance on Incidental Learning. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Helsinki, Finland) (IUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 794–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511138
  28. Hila Gonen and Yoav Goldberg. 2019. Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Them. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 609–614. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1061
  29. Do Explanations Help Users Detect Errors in Open-Domain QA? An Evaluation of Spoken vs. Visual Explanations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.95
  30. What Else Do I Need to Know? The Effect of Background Information on Users’ Reliance on AI Systems. arXiv:2305.14331 [cs.CL]
  31. Anthony G Greenwald and Mahzarin R Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review 102, 1 (1995), 4. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
  32. Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors 57, 3 (2015), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570 PMID: 25875432.
  33. Metrics for explainable AI: Challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608 (2018).
  34. Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/f5f8590cd58a54e94377e6ae2eded4d9-Paper.pdf
  35. Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matching. arXiv:2302.08450 [cs.LG]
  36. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 67), Christos H. Papadimitriou (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 43:1–43:23. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43
  37. ”Why is ’Chicago’ Deceptive?” Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376873
  38. Vivian Lai and Chenhao Tan. 2019. On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAccT ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287590
  39. What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? – A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research. Artificial Intelligence 296 (2021), 103473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103473
  40. Procedural Justice in Algorithmic Fairness: Leveraging Transparency and Outcome Control for Fair Algorithmic Mediation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 182 (nov 2019), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284
  41. Joseph Lev. 1949. The Point Biserial Coefficient of Correlation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20, 1 (1949), 125–126. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236816
  42. Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In Machine Learning, the Concept of Interpretability is Both Important and Slippery. Queue 16, 3 (jun 2018), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340
  43. Understanding the Effect of Out-of-Distribution Examples and Interactive Explanations on Human-AI Decision Making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 408 (oct 2021), 45 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479552
  44. Stephen Marsh and Mark R. Dibben. 2003. The role of trust in information science and technology. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37, 1 (2003), 465–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370111
  45. Stephanie M. Merritt and Daniel R. Ilgen. 2008. Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions. Human Factors 50, 2 (2008), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574 PMID: 18516832.
  46. Arvind Narayanan. 2018. Translation Tutorial: 21 Fairness Definitions and Their Politics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), Vol. 1170. New York, USA, 3.
  47. It’s Complicated: The Relationship between User Trust, Model Accuracy and Explanations in AI. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 4, Article 35 (mar 2022), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3495013
  48. Discrimination-Aware Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA) (KDD ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 560–568. https://doi.org/10.1145/1401890.1401959
  49. Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 237, 52 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445315
  50. Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173677
  51. Amy Rechkemmer and Ming Yin. 2022. When Confidence Meets Accuracy: Exploring the Effects of Multiple Performance Indicators on Trust in Machine Learning Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 535, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501967
  52. Federal Reserve. 2006. Consumer Compliance Handbook. Chapter Fair Lending Regulations and Statutes: Overview. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/fair_lend_over.pdf
  53. Measuring Non-Expert Comprehension of Machine Learning Fairness Metrics. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119), Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh (Eds.). PMLR, 8377–8387. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/saha20c.html
  54. On Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11812 (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.11812
  55. Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Care. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 754, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581075
  56. Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Anchorage, AK, USA) (KDD ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2459–2468. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330664
  57. Misplaced Trust: Measuring the Interference of Machine Learning in Human Decision-Making. In 12th ACM Conference on Web Science (Southampton, United Kingdom) (WebSci ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394231.3397922
  58. Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 129 (apr 2023), 38 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579605
  59. The Effects of AI Biases and Explanations on Human Decision Fairness: A Case Study of Bidding in Rental Housing Markets. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, Edith Elkind (Ed.). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 3076–3084. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/343 Main Track.
  60. Xinru Wang and Ming Yin. 2021. Are Explanations Helpful? A Comparative Study of the Effects of Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision-Making. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (College Station, TX, USA) (IUI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450650
  61. Xinru Wang and Ming Yin. 2022. Effects of Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: Principles and Comparisons. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 12, 4, Article 27 (nov 2022), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3519266
  62. Richard Warner and Robert H. Sloan. 2021. Making Artificial Intelligence Transparent: Fairness and the Problem of Proxy Variables. Criminal Justice Ethics 40, 1 (2021), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2021.1893932
  63. How Do Visual Explanations Foster End Users’ Appropriate Trust in Machine Learning?. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Cagliari, Italy) (IUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377480
  64. Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: The Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 134, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581161
  65. Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAccT ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372852
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Navita Goyal (8 papers)
  2. Connor Baumler (4 papers)
  3. Tin Nguyen (14 papers)
  4. Hal Daumé III (76 papers)
Citations (4)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com