scholarly journals A Systematic Approach to Group Fairness in Automated Decision Making

Author(s):  
Corinna Hertweck ◽  
Christoph Heitz
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja BRKAN ◽  
Grégory BONNET

Understanding of the causes and correlations for algorithmic decisions is currently one of the major challenges of computer science, addressed under an umbrella term “explainable AI (XAI)”. Being able to explain an AI-based system may help to make algorithmic decisions more satisfying and acceptable, to better control and update AI-based systems in case of failure, to build more accurate models, and to discover new knowledge directly or indirectly. On the legal side, the question whether the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides data subjects with the right to explanation in case of automated decision-making has equally been the subject of a heated doctrinal debate. While arguing that the right to explanation in the GDPR should be a result of interpretative analysis of several GDPR provisions jointly, the authors move this debate forward by discussing the technical and legal feasibility of the explanation of algorithmic decisions. Legal limits, in particular the secrecy of algorithms, as well as technical obstacles could potentially obstruct the practical implementation of this right. By adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the authors explore not only whether it is possible to translate the EU legal requirements for an explanation into the actual machine learning decision-making, but also whether those limitations can shape the way the legal right is used in practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1948
Author(s):  
Qiaoning Zhang ◽  
Xi Jessie Yang ◽  
Lionel P. Robert

Automated vehicles (AV) have the potential to benefit our society. Providing explanations is one approach to facilitating AV trust by decreasing uncertainty about automated decision-making. However, it is not clear whether explanations are equally beneficial for drivers across age groups in terms of trust and anxiety. To examine this, we conducted a mixed-design experiment with 40 participants divided into three age groups (i.e., younger, middle-age, and older). Participants were presented with: (1) no explanation, or (2) explanation given before or (3) after the AV took action, or (4) explanation along with a request for permission to take action. Results highlight both commonalities and differences between age groups. These results have important implications in designing AV explanations and promoting trust.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-166
Author(s):  
M. Iqbal

ABSTRACTIn the recent past life companies have made many decisions which they have had cause to deeply regret. This paper looks at the range of decision making theories available. It then examines recent examples of decisions that had unfavourable consequences and explores why they were taken, and goes on to describe a systematic approach to decision making which can help management assess more objectively the difficult choices confronting them today. The approach does not require espousal of any specific decision theory or method of value measurement. The focus is on the decision making process and the organisation's capacity to handle change. The paper identifies the three requirements for effective decision making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document