Fairness, accountability and transparency in Machine Learning? Jo Bates reports back from ACM FAT* in Atlanta, USA
A couple of weeks ago I travelled to Atlanta, USA to attend- an interdisciplinary conference that addresses issues of Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Machine Learning. Officially, I was there on the hunt for potential papers and authors to invite to submit their work to . However, the FAT* field is also closely related to my research interests around the politics of data and algorithms, and my teaching on the Information School’s . I was keen to check out what was happening in the FAT* community, and feed my findings back into my teaching and into two new projects I am working on in this field: & supervising a new PhD student – – whose research will investigate algorithmic bias in collaboration with the Department for Work and Pensions.
I was privileged to hear a number of great papers – the best of which engaged critically with issues of social context and justice. My two favourite papers which I highly recommend for anyone interested in these topics were:
- by Andrew Selbst, danah boyd, Sorelle Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian and Janet Vertasi; and,
- by Ben Green and Yiling Chen
- Framing: The authors begin by critiquing the ‘algorithmic framing’ common in data science. In such an abstraction, the focus of the data/computer scientist is simply on evaluating, for example, whether the model has high accuracy. They point out that such a framing is ineffective for addressing issues of bias and fairness. Expanding this algorithmic framing to a ‘data frame’ which also involves interrogating directly the data inputs and outputs for issues of bias and fairness, can address some of these issues, but also has its limitations. Instead they advocate data scientists adopting a socio-technical framing which explicitly recognises that any ML model is part of a socio-technical system – and we need to move all the decisions made by humans and human institutions into the abstraction boundary. I couldn’t agree more!
- Formalism: This is an important ‘trap’ for computer scientists and mathematicians to be aware of. It relates to the failure to account for the complexity of social concepts such as fairness, bias etc. The meaning of such concepts is contextual and contestable – they cannot be reduced to mathematical formalisms!
- The Ripple Effect: This ‘trap’ points to the lack of awareness that when technical solutions are embedded into existing social systems, they can impact upon the behaviours and values of those in the social system – often in unexpected ways.
- Portability: This ‘trap’ relates to the problems inherent in repurposing algorithmic solutions from one social context to another – and the inevitable problems of inaccuracy, misleading results, and potential for harm.
- Solutionism: And, finally - the simple observation that technologists often fail to recognise that the best solution to a problem may not involve any technology!
Putting some of these ideas into practice was my second favourite paper – which also won the prize for best technical and interdisciplinary paper -(Green and Chen, 2019).
With a focus on risk assessments being used in the US criminal justice system, the authors argue that given risk assessment tools do not actually make decisions, but are used to inform judges’ decisions, it is important to understand how people actually interpret and use the outputs of these tools. Their study is based on an experiment involving Amazon Mechanical Turk workers – rather than actual judges – however, their findings are concerning. They found their participants under-performed the risk assessment tool even when presented with the prediction of the tool; they were unable to effectively evaluate the accuracy of their own decisions or those of the tool; and, most concerning they exhibited biased interaction with the tool’s prediction whereby use of risk assessments in decision making led to participants making higher risk predictions for black defendants and lower risk predictions for white defendants. Clearly, these findings need examining ‘in the wild’, but they are concerning, and evidence the importance of a socio-technical framing as called for by Selbst et al.
While there were some excellent papers presented at FAT*, there were also a good few that fell into some of the ‘traps’ of abstraction identified in Selbst et al’s paper – and this resulted in some interesting commentary about the nature and direction of the field. For example, important questions were raised by Stanford PhD student, who drew upon and ’s forthcoming book Data Feminism, to question the language of fairness, accountability and transparency, and how it relates to notions of justice. Her comments received a lot of support from attendees and online:
Pratyusha’s observations reflect many of my own – and others in the Critical Data Studies space - concerns about what it means to work across disciplinary boundaries in this field, and the politics of engaging in such work with people who may have very different agendas, assumptions, and understandings about what is at stake. It can sometimes be difficult to know how best to navigate these tensions – but it feels like 2019 could be an important moment for shaping the direction of the field.