EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders
Lin Luo, Yuri Nakao, Mathieu Chollet, Hiroya Inakoshi, Simone Stumpf
Abstract
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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 9f9f5b26-47ec-45a4-82f3-3c52fe8c02a4Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on9
- Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for SupportMichael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan et al.CSCW 2022 · 149 citations
- Measuring Non-Expert Comprehension of Machine Learning Fairness MetricsDebjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan C. McElfresh, John P. Dickerson et al.ICML 2020 · 71 citations
- Deliberating with AI: Improving Decision-Making for the Future through Participatory AI Design and Stakeholder DeliberationAngie Zhang, Olympia Walker, Kaci Nguyen, Jiajun Dai et al.CSCW 2023 · 71 citations
- The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi-Stakeholder, Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI ProposalsAnna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari et al.CHI 2024 · 54 citations
- Soliciting Stakeholders' Fairness Notions in Child Maltreatment Predictive SystemsHao Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Ruiqi Wang, Paige Bullock et al.CHI 2021 · 54 citations
Related papers
- FairPlay: A Collaborative Approach to Mitigate Bias in Datasets for Improved AI FairnessTina Behzad, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Anthony J. Ripa, Klaus MuellerCSCW 2025 · 4 citations
- Evaluating Search System Explainability with Psychometrics and CrowdsourcingCatherine Chen, Carsten EickhoffSIGIR 2024 · 2 citations
- Contextualizing User Perceptions about Biases for Human-Centered Explainable Artificial IntelligenceTina Chien-Wen Yuan, Nanyi Bi, Ya-Fang Lin, Yuen-Hsien TsengCHI 2023 · 30 citations
- Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased PeopleMingzhe Yang, Hiromi Arai, Naomi Yamashita, Yukino BabaCHI 2024 · 11 citations
- What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability MethodsJulien Colin, Thomas Fel, Rémi Cadène, Thomas SerreNeurIPS 2022 · 147 citations
