Aug 2026· Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society· 0 citations
Computer Science
TL;DR
A literature review of scholarly works purporting to evaluate the bias or fairness of technological systems used for tasks related to hiring and employment finds 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.
Abstract
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.
This study explores the potential of counterfactual explanations to assess artificial intelligence (AI) fairness, especially in critical decision-making systems. Predictive models may amplify biases inherent in data sets or algorithms, and given the absence of a universally accepted fairness metric, a case-specific app...
Federico Sabbatini, Roberta Calegari· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
This position paper argues that fairness failures in generative models, albeit driven by multiple factors, are ultimately stemming from an evaluation problem: fairness findings are rarely comparable across papers or actionable for deployment decisions.
M. Vladimirova, Jean-Yves Franceschi, Thibaut Issenhuth· 0 citations
A PRISMA 2020-guided systematic literature review draws on 82 studies selected from 493 records retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science and reveals a structural disconnect in the fairness-in-NLP and HCAI governance literature.
Asmae El Moutafail, Khalid Belkhoutout· EPJ Web of Conferences· 0 citations
It is argued that clinical utility, performance-based metrics, calibration, and statistical parity are the most relevant group-based metrics for medical applications and that different metrics might be applicable depending on the intended use and ethical framework.
S. L. van der Meijden, Yuqing Wang, Madelena Y. Ng et al.· The Lancet Digital Health· 1 citation
It is argued that current benchmarking practices may perpetuate systematic harms affecting various actors in AI research, aligning with four of Iris Marion Young's theories of oppression and structural injustice.
Jason Branford, Angelie Kraft· Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM...· 0 citations
This paper presents a work-in-progress conceptual framework that bridges Computer Science approaches to formal algorithmic fairness with normative and Social Science fairness approaches regarding perceived fairness, trust, and technology acceptance, embedding both within the sociotechnical conditions that shape human j...
Maike Lindermayr, Mattia Cerrato, Luisa Hübner et al.· 0 citations
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.