Reducing the incidence of biased algorithmic decisions through feature importance transparency: an empirical study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As firms move towards data-driven decision-making using algorithmic systems, concerns are raised regarding the lack of transparency of these systems which could have ramifications related to users’ trust and the potential for provoking discriminatory decisions. Although previous research has developed methods to improve algorithmic transparency, little empirical evidence exists regarding the extent of the effectiveness of these approaches. Drawing upon Rest’s theory of ethical decision-making and the literature on algorithmic transparency and bias, we investigate the effectiveness of feature importance (FI), a common transparency-enhancing approach, which illustrates the nature and the weights of the features utilised by an algorithm. Through an online experiment employing a fictitious tool that provided recommendations for selecting employees for a promotion-related training programme, we find that FI is effective when biased recommendations include direct discrimination (i.e. when individuals are treated less favourably on protected grounds such as gender); but is of little assistance when discrimination is indirect (i.e. when a criterion or practice that is apparently neutral, disadvantages a group of individuals who are of a protected class). Additionally, we propose a new transparency approach, using aggregated demographic information, to accompany FI in indirect discrimination circumstances and report the results of testing its effects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it