No abstract

There are increasing expectations that algorithms should behave in a manner that is socially just. We consider the case of image tagging APIs and their interpretations of people images. Image taggers have become indispensable in our information ecosystem, facilitating new modes of visual communication and sharing. Recently, they have become widely available as Cognitive Services. But while tagging APIs offer developers an inexpensive and convenient means to add functionality to their creations, most are opaque and proprietary. Through a cross-platform comparison of six taggers, we show that behaviors differ significantly. While some offer more interpretation on images, they may exhibit less fairness toward the depicted persons, by misuse of gender-related tags and/or making judgments on a person’s physical appearance. We also discuss the difficulties of studying fairness in situations where algorithmic systems cannot be benchmarked against a ground truth.

Machine-learned computer vision algorithms for tagging images are increasingly used by developers and researchers, having become popularized as easy-to-use "cognitive services." Yet these tools struggle with gender recognition, particularly when processing images of women, people of color and non-binary individuals. Socio-technical researchers have cited data bias as a key problem; training datasets often over-represent images of people and contexts that convey social stereotypes. The social psychology literature explains that people learn social stereotypes, in part, by observing others in particular roles and contexts, and can inadvertently learn to associate gender with scenes, occupations and activities. Thus, we study the extent to which image tagging algorithms mimic this phenomenon. We design a controlled experiment, to examine the interdependence between algorithmic recognition of context and the depicted person's gender. In the spirit of auditing to understand machine behaviors, we create a highly controlled dataset of people images, imposed on gender-stereotyped backgrounds. Our methodology is reproducible and our code publicly available. Evaluating five proprietary algorithms, we find that in three, gender inference is hindered when a background is introduced. Of the two that "see" both backgrounds and gender, it is the one whose output is most consistent with human stereotyping processes that is superior in recognizing gender. We discuss the accuracy--fairness trade-off, as well as the importance of auditing black boxes in better understanding this double-edged sword.

No abstract

Summary In this work, we investigate how students in fields adjacent to algorithms development perceive fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in algorithmic decision-making. Participants (N = 99) were asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding six constructs that are related to facets of fairness and justice in algorithmic decision-making using scenarios, in addition to defining algorithmic fairness and providing their view on possible causes of unfairness, transparency approaches, and accountability. The findings indicate that “agreeing” with a decision does not mean that the person “deserves the outcome,” perceiving the factors used in the decision-making as “appropriate” does not make the decision of the system “fair,” and perceiving a system's decision as “not fair” is affecting the participants' “trust” in the system. Furthermore, fairness is most likely to be defined as the use of “objective factors,” and participants identify the use of “sensitive attributes” as the most likely cause of unfairness.