Assessing fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) typically involves AI experts who select protected features, fairness metrics, and set fairness thresholds to assess outcome fairness. However, little is known about how stakeholders, particularly those affected by AI outcomes but lacking AI expertise, assess fairness. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 26 stakeholders without AI expertise, representing potential decision subjects in a credit rating scenario, to examine how they assess fairness when placed in the role of deciding on features with priority, metrics, and thresholds. We reveal that stakeholders' fairness decisions are more complex than typical AI expert practices: they considered features far beyond legally protected features, tailored metrics for specific contexts, set diverse yet stricter fairness thresholds, and even preferred designing customized fairness. Our results extend the understanding of how stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to AI fairness governance and mitigation, underscoring the importance of incorporating stakeholders' nuanced fairness judgments.

Numerous fairness metrics have been proposed and employed by artificial intelligence (AI) experts to quantitatively measure bias and define fairness in AI models. Recognizing the need to accommodate stakeholders' diverse fairness understandings, efforts are underway to solicit their input. However, conveying AI fairness metrics to stakeholders without AI expertise, capturing their personal preferences, and seeking a collective consensus remain challenging and underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a new framework, EARN ( Explain, Ask, Review, and Negotiate ) Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise. The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to Explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection. To gather empirical results, we applied the framework to a credit rating scenario and conducted a user study involving 18 decision subjects without AI knowledge. We elicited their personal metric preferences and subsequently we studied how they reached metric consensus in team sessions. Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework supports stakeholders to express and negotiate fairness preferences, and we provide practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts. Through this approach, we aim to reach consensus of fairness perspectives, fostering more equitable and inclusive AI fairness.

Abstract While AI technology is becoming increasingly prevalent in our daily lives, the comprehension of machine learning (ML) among non-experts remains limited. Interactive machine learning (IML) has the potential to serve as a tool for end users, but many existing IML systems are designed for users with a certain level of expertise. Consequently, it remains unclear whether IML experiences can enhance the comprehension of ordinary users. In this study, we conducted a public event using an IML system to assess whether participants could gain technical comprehension through hands-on IML experiences. We implemented an interactive sound classification system featuring visualization of internal feature representation and invited visitors at a science museum to freely interact with it. By analyzing user behavior and questionnaire responses, we discuss the potential and limitations of IML systems as a tool for promoting technical comprehension among non-experts.

With Artificial intelligence (AI) to aid or automate decision-making advancing rapidly, a particular concern is its fairness. In order to create reliable, safe and trustworthy systems through human-centred artificial intelligence (HCAI) design, recent efforts have produced user interfaces (UIs) for AI experts to investigate the fairness of AI models. In this work, we provide a design space exploration that supports not only data scientists but also domain experts to investigate AI fairness. Using loan applications as an example, we held a series of workshops with loan officers and data scientists to elicit their requirements. We instantiated these requirements into FairHIL, a UI to support human-in-the-loop fairness investigations, and describe how this UI could be generalized to other use cases. We evaluated FairHIL through a think-aloud user study. Our work contributes better designs to investigate an AI model’s fairness—and move closer towards responsible AI.

Ensuring fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) is important to counteract bias and discrimination in far-reaching applications. Recent work has started to investigate how humans judge fairness and how to support machine learning experts in making their AI models fairer. Drawing inspiration from an Explainable AI approach called explanatory debugging used in interactive machine learning, our work explores designing interpretable and interactive human-in-the-loop interfaces that allow ordinary end-users without any technical or domain background to identify potential fairness issues and possibly fix them in the context of loan decisions. Through workshops with end-users, we co-designed and implemented a prototype system that allowed end-users to see why predictions were made, and then to change weights on features to “debug” fairness issues. We evaluated the use of this prototype system through an online study. To investigate the implications of diverse human values about fairness around the globe, we also explored how cultural dimensions might play a role in using this prototype. Our results contribute to the design of interfaces to allow end-users to be involved in judging and addressing AI fairness through a human-in-the-loop approach.

Interactive machine learning techniques have a great potential to personalize media recognition models for each individual user by letting them browse and annotate a large amount of training data. However, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for interactive machine learning have been mainly investigated in image and text recognition scenarios, not in other data modalities such as sound. In a scenario where users browse a large amount of audio files to search and annotate target samples corresponding to their own sound recognition classes, it is difficult for them to easily navigate through the overall sample structure due to the non-visual nature of audio data. In this work, we investigate the design issue for interactive sound recognition by comparing different visualization techniques ranging from audio spectrograms to deep learning-based audio-to-image retrieval. Based on an analysis of the user study, we clarify the advantages and disadvantages of audio visualization techniques, and provide design implications for interactive sound recognition GUIs using a massive amount of audio samples.