Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper conducts a literature review of 22 fairness evaluation metrics in AI, particularly focusing on their application in hiring and employment contexts, revealing a significant gap in adherence to risk science principles regarding uncertainty characterization. The authors demonstrate how integrating risk science into AI fairness evaluations can enhance the understanding of bias-related consequences, using a case study on AI-mediated resume screening. They introduce the AI Risk Report Card as a tool for effectively communicating risk assessment results to stakeholders, paving the way for improved societal impact assessments in AI technologies.
Most AI fairness evaluations overlook critical uncertainty factors, risking misinterpretation of bias impacts in hiring systems.
Scholarly work which aims to describe potential societal impacts (e.g., risks) of proliferating technology (especially related to artificial intelligence or other algorithmic systems) is likely to have an impact beyond the scientific communities it was written for, given that general society itself is a primary object of study. However, it is an open question whether the current practices of AI evaluation scholarship follow the principles and best practices established by risk science, which aims to systematically generate knowledge related to understanding, assessing, communicating, managing, and governing risk. In this work, we examine this in depth by conducting a literature review of scholarly works purporting to evaluate the bias or fairness of technological systems used for tasks related to hiring and employment. Through analysis of 22 common fairness evaluation metrics and studies using them, we find that most characterize the severity of bias- or fairness-related consequences but do not follow best practices to characterize the uncertainty around either the occurrence of these consequences or severity estimates. Next, we conduct a case study of fairness evaluation for an AI-mediated resume screening task and demonstrate how principles of risk science can be incorporated into such an evaluation. Finally, we propose the AI Risk Report Card, which facilitates the reporting and communication of risk assessment results to stakeholders in positions to act based on the predicted risks. The outcomes of these activities suggest that further research at the convergence of risk science and AI evaluation can lead to advancements in AI assessments of societal impact by enabling shared frameworks to evaluate and discuss AI risks both within and outside of the scientific community.