Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although algorithmic auditing has emerged as a key strategy to expose systematic biases embedded in software platforms, we struggle to understand the real-world impact of these audits, as scholarship on the impact of algorithmic audits on increasing algorithmic fairness and transparency in commercial systems is nascent. To analyze the impact of publicly naming and disclosing performance results of biased AI systems, we investigate the commercial impact of Gender Shades, the first algorithmic audit of gender and skin type performance disparities in commercial facial analysis models. This paper 1) outlines the audit design and structured disclosure procedure used in the Gender Shades study, 2) presents new performance metrics from targeted companies IBM, Microsoft and Megvii (Face++) on the Pilot Parliaments Benchmark (PPB) as of August 2018, 3) provides performance results on PPB by non-target companies Amazon and Kairos and, 4) explores differences in company responses as shared through corporate communications that contextualize differences in performance on PPB. Within 7 months of the original audit, we find that all three targets released new API versions. All targets reduced accuracy disparities between males and females and darker and lighter-skinned subgroups, with the most significant update occurring for the darker-skinned female subgroup, that underwent a 17.7% - 30.4% reduction in error between audit periods. Minimizing these disparities led to a 5.72% to 8.3% reduction in overall error on the Pilot Parliaments Benchmark (PPB) for target corporation APIs. The overall performance of non-targets Amazon and Kairos lags significantly behind that of the targets, with error rates of 8.66% and 6.60% overall, and error rates of 31.37% and 22.50% for the darker female subgroup, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".