research-article

'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions

Authors:

Nigel ShadboltAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Paper No.: 377, Pages 1 - 14

https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951

Published: 21 April 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Data-driven decision-making consequential to individuals raises important questions of accountability and justice. Indeed, European law provides individuals limited rights to 'meaningful information about the logic' behind significant, autonomous decisions such as loan approvals, insurance quotes, and CV filtering. We undertake three experimental studies examining people's perceptions of justice in algorithmic decision-making under different scenarios and explanation styles. Dimensions of justice previously observed in response to human decision-making appear similarly engaged in response to algorithmic decisions. Qualitative analysis identified several concerns and heuristics involved in justice perceptions including arbitrariness, generalisation, and (in)dignity. Quantitative analysis indicates that explanation styles primarily matter to justice perceptions only when subjects are exposed to multiple different styles---under repeated exposure of one style, scenario effects obscure any explanation effects. Our results suggests there may be no 'best' approach to explaining algorithmic decisions, and that reflection on their automated nature both implicates and mitigates justice dimensions.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (pn3289.zip)

Download
7.59 MB

suppl.mov (pn3289-file5.mp4)

Supplemental video

Download
8.29 MB

MP4 File (pn3289.mp4)

Download
223.89 MB

References

[1]

Stavros Antifakos, Nicky Kern, Bernt Schiele, and Adrian Schwaninger. 2005. Towards improving trust in context-aware systems by displaying system confidence. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services. ACM, 9--14.

Digital Library

[2]

Liliana Ardissono, Anna Goy, Giovanna Petrone, Marino Segnan, and Pietro Torasso. 2003. Intrigue: personalized recommendation of tourist attractions for desktop and hand held devices. Applied Artificial Intelligence 17, 8--9 (2003), 687--714.

[3]

Bettina Berendt and Sören Preibusch. 2014. Better decision support through exploratory discrimination-aware data mining: foundations and empirical evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 22, 2 (2014), 175--209.

Digital Library

[4]

Joel Brockner and Batia M Wiesenfeld. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological bulletin 120, 2 (1996), 189.

[5]

Joanna J Bryson. 2010. Robots should be slaves. Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues (2010), 63--74.

[6]

Jenna Burrell. 2016. How the machine 'thinks': Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3, 1 (2016), 2053951715622512.

[7]

Adrian Bussone, Simone Stumpf, and Dympna O'Sullivan. 2015. The role of explanations on trust and reliance in clinical decision support systems. In Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2015 International Conference on. IEEE, 160--169.

Digital Library

[8]

William J Clancey. 1983. The epistemology of a rule-based expert system - a framework for explanation. Artificial intelligence 20, 3 (1983), 215--251.

[9]

Cory J Clark, Eric Evan Chen, and Peter H Ditto. 2015. Moral coherence processes: Constructing culpability and consequences. Current Opinion in Psychology 6 (2015), 123--128.

[10]

Jason A Colquitt, Donald E Conlon, Michael J Wesson, Christopher OLH Porter, and K Yee Ng. 2001. Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 3 (2001).

[11]

Jason A Colquitt and Jessica B Rodell. 2015. Measuring justice and fairness. In Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, Russell Cropanzano and Maureen L Ambrose (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 187--202.

[12]

Pádraig Cunningham, Dónal Doyle, and John Loughrey. 2003. An evaluation of the usefulness of case-based explanation. Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (2003), 1065--1065.

[13]

Anupam Datta, Shayak Sen, and Yair Zick. 2016. Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2016 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 598--617.

[14]

Michael A DeVito, Darren Gergle, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2017. Algorithms ruin everything: #RIPTwitter, Folk Theories, and Resistance to Algorithmic Change in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'17. 3163--3174.

Digital Library

[15]

Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608

[16]

Paul Dourish. 1997. Accounting for system behaviour: Representation, reflection and resourceful action. Computers and Design in Context, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1997), 145--170.

Digital Library

[17]

Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2017. UX Design Innovation: Challenges for Working with Machine Learning as a Design Material. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'17. ACM, 278--288.

Digital Library

[18]

Donal Doyle, Alexey Tsymbal, and Padraig Cunningham. 2003. A Review of Explanation and Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning (TCD-CS-2003--41). Trinity College Dublin, Dublin.

[19]

Mary T Dzindolet, Scott A Peterson, Regina A Pomranky, Linda G Pierce, and Hall P Beck. 2003. The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 6 (2003), 697--718.

Digital Library

[20]

Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale. 2017. Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For. Duke Law & Technology Review 16, 1 (2017), 18--84.

[21]

Kate Ehrlich, Susanna E Kirk, John Patterson, Jamie C Rasmussen, Steven I Ross, and Daniel M Gruen. 2011. Taking advice from intelligent systems: The double-edged sword of explanations. In Proceedings of the 16th International conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 125--134.

Digital Library

[22]

Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I "like" it, then I hide it: Folk theories of social feeds. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'16. ACM, 2371--2382.

Digital Library

[23]

Michael Feldman, Sorelle A. Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '15). 259--268.

Digital Library

[24]

Robert Fildes, Paul Goodwin, Michael Lawrence, and Konstantinos Nikolopoulos. 2009. Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: An empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning. International Journal of Forecasting 25, 1 (2009), 3--23.

[25]

Batya Friedman and Peter H Kahn. 1992. Human agency and responsible computing: Implications for computer system design. Journal of Systems and Software 17, 1 (1992), 7--14.

Digital Library

[26]

Kate Goddard, Abdul Roudsari, and Jeremy C Wyatt. 2011. Automation Bias: A Systematic Review of Frequency, Effect Mediators, and Mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 19, 1 (2011), 121--127.

[27]

Jerald Greenberg and R Cropanzano. 1993. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1993).

[28]

Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2016. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. In NIPS Symposium on Machine Learning and the Law, Barcelona, Spain, 8 December 2016.

[29]

Sara Hajian and Josep Domingo-Ferrer. 2012. Direct and indirect discrimination prevention methods. In Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society, Bart Custers, Toon Calders, Bart Schermer, and Tal Zarsky (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 241--254.

[30]

Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 241--250.

Digital Library

[31]

Mireille Hildebrandt and Serge Gutwirth. 2008. Profiling the European Citizen. Springer.

Digital Library

[32]

David C Hsia. 1978. Credit scoring and the equal credit opportunity act. Hastings LJ 30 (1978), 371.

[33]

Hilary Johnson and Peter Johnson. 1993. Explanation facilities and interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 159--166.

Digital Library

[34]

Been Kim, Caleb M Chacha, and Julie A Shah. 2015. Inferring Robot Task Plans from Human Team Meetings: A Generative Modeling Approach with Logic-Based Prior. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 52 (2015), 361--398.

Digital Library

[35]

René F Kizilcec. 2016. How much information?: Effects of transparency on trust in an algorithmic interface. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2390--2395.

Digital Library

[36]

Pigi Kouki, James Schaffer, Jay Pujara, John O'Donovan, and Lise Getoor. 2017. User Preferences for Hybrid Explanations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 84--88.

Digital Library

[37]

Carmen Lacave and Francisco J Díez. 2002. A review of explanation methods for Bayesian networks. The Knowledge Engineering Review 17, 2 (2002), 107--127.

Digital Library

[38]

Stefan Lessmann, Bart Baesens, Hsin-Vonn Seow, and Lyn C Thomas. 2015. Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring: An update of research. European Journal of Operational Research 247, 1 (2015), 124--136.

[39]

Brian Y Lim, Anind K Dey, and Daniel Avrahami. 2009. Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2119--2128.

Digital Library

[40]

E Allan Lind and Tom R Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.

[41]

Zachary C Lipton. 2016. The Mythos of Model Interpretability. In 2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016). New York. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490

[42]

Jerry L Mashaw. 1985. Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims. Yale University Press.

[43]

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. John Murray, London.

[44]

Gregory Mitchell. 2004. Libertarian Paternalism is an Cxymoron. Nw. UL Rev. 99 (2004), 1245.

[45]

Grégoire Montavon, Sebastian Lapuschkin, Alexander Binder, Wojciech Samek, and Klaus-Robert Müller. 2017. Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep Taylor decomposition. Pattern Recognition 65 (2017), 211--222.

Digital Library

[46]

Johanna D Moore and William R Swartout. 1991. A reactive approach to explanation: Taking the user's feedback into account. In Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, Cecile Paris, William R. Swartout, and William C. Mann (Eds.). Springer, 3--48.

[47]

Bonnie M Muir. 1994. Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37, 11 (1994), 1905--1922.

[48]

Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, Ellen Tauber, and Heidi Reeder. 1993. Anthropomorphism, agency, and ethopoeia: computers as social actors. In INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 111--112.

Digital Library

[49]

Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 72--78.

Digital Library

[50]

Robert Neches, William R. Swartout, and Johanna D. Moore. 1985. Enhanced maintenance and explanation of expert systems through explicit models of their development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 11 (1985), 1337--1351.

Digital Library

[51]

Janni Nielsen, Torkil Clemmensen, and Carsten Yssing. 2002. Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique. In Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, 101--110.

Digital Library

[52]

Donald A Norman. 1983. Some observations on mental models. Mental Models 7, 112 (1983), 7--14.

[53]

Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 5 (2010), 625--632.

[54]

Conor Nugent and Pádraig Cunningham. 2005. A case-based explanation system for black-box systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 24, 2 (2005), 163--178.

Digital Library

[55]

Cathy O'Neil. 2017. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.

[56]

Cathy O'Neill. 2016. How algorithms rule our working lives. The Guardian (2016).

[57]

Dilek Önkal, Paul Goodwin, Mary Thomson, Sinan Gönül, and Andrew Pollock. 2009. The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22, 4 (2009), 390--409.

[58]

Frank Pasquale. 2015. Digital Star Chamber. Aeon (2015). https://aeon.co/essays/ judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm

[59]

Dino Pedreshi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. 2008. Discrimination-aware Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 560--568.

Digital Library

[60]

Pearl Pu and Li Chen. 2006. Trust building with explanation interfaces. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 93--100.

Digital Library

[61]

Bashir Rastegarpanah, Mark Crovella, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Exploring Explanations for Matrix Factorization Recommender Systems. (2017).

[62]

Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1135--1144.

Digital Library

[63]

Wojciech Samek, Alexander Binder, Grégoire Montavon, Sebastian Lapuschkin, and Klaus-Robert Müller. 2016. Evaluating the visualization of what a deep neural network has learned. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2016).

[64]

Paul Schwartz. 1991. Data processing and government administration: the failure of the American legal response to the computer. Hastings LJ 43 (1991), 1321.

[65]

Andrew D. Selbst and Solon Barocas. forthcoming. Regulating Inscrutable Systems. On file with authors. (forthcoming).

[66]

Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes. 1997. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. interactions 4, 6 (1997), 42--61.

Digital Library

[67]

Tom Simonite. 2017. Machine Learning for Everyone. MIT Tech Review (2017). https://www.technologyreview.com/s/ 600987/machine-learning-for-everyone/

[68]

Carolin Strobl, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, and Torsten Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 1 (2007), 1.

[69]

Randy L Teach and Edward H Shortliffe. 1981. An analysis of physician attitudes regarding computer-based clinical consultation systems. Computers and Biomedical Research 14, 6 (1981), 542--558.

[70]

Maartje ter Hoeve, Mathieu Heruer, Daan Odijk, Anne Schuth, and Maarten de Rijke. 2017. Do News Consumers Want Explanations for Personalized News Rankings?. In FATREC Workshop on Responsible Recommendation Proceedings.

[71]

John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, Stephen LaTour, and Pauline Houlden. 1973. Procedural justice as fairness. Stan. L. Rev. 26 (1973), 1271.

[72]

Lyn Thomas, Jonathan Crook, and David Edelman. 2017. Credit scoring and its applications. SIAM.

Digital Library

[73]

Alan B Tickle, Robert Andrews, Mostefa Golea, and Joachim Diederich. 1998. The truth will come to light: Directions and challenges in extracting the knowledge embedded within trained artificial neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 9, 6 (1998), 1057--1068.

Digital Library

[74]

Nava Tintarev and Judith Masthoff. 2015. Explaining recommendations: Design and evaluation. In Recommender Systems Handbook, F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira, and P.B. Kantor (Eds.). Springer, 353--382.

[75]

John W Tukey. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics (1949), 99--114.

[76]

Joe Tullio, Anind K Dey, Jason Chalecki, and James Fogarty. 2007. How it works: a field study of non-technical users interacting with an intelligent system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 31--40.

Digital Library

[77]

Giovanni Vaia, Erran Carmel, William DeLone, Harald Trautsch, and Flavio Menichetti. 2012. Vehicle Telematics at an Italian Insurer: New Auto Insurance Products and a New Industry Ecosystem. MIS Quarterly Executive 11, 3 (2012).

[78]

Kees Van den Bos, E Allan Lind, Riël Vermunt, and Henk AM Wilke. 1997. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, 5 (1997), 1034.

[79]

Kees Van den Bos, Lynn Van der Velden, and Allan Lind. 2014. On the role of perceived procedural justice in citizens' reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Review 10, 4 (2014).

[80]

Jesse Vig, Shilad Sen, and John Riedl. 2009. Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 47--56.

Digital Library

[81]

Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Luciano Floridi. 2017. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law 7, 2 (2017), 76--99.

[82]

Adrian Weller. 2017. Challenges for Transparency. In 2017 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2017). New York. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01870

[83]

Joseph Jay Williams, Juho Kim, Anna Rafferty, Samuel Maldonado, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Walter S Lasecki, and Neil Heffernan. 2016. Axis: Generating explanations at scale with learnersourcing and machine learning. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. ACM, 379--388.

Digital Library

[84]

Lan Xia, Kent B Monroe, and Jennifer L Cox. 2004. The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing 68, 4 (2004), 1--15.

[85]

L Richard Ye and Paul E Johnson. 1995. The impact of explanation facilities on user acceptance of expert systems advice. MIS Quarterly (1995), 157--172.

Digital Library

[86]

Jiaming Zeng, Berk Ustun, and Cynthia Rudin. 2017. Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 180, 3 (2017), 689--722.

Cited By

Kaur HSharma SGuleria S(2024)Navigating the Digital Landscape With the Integration of Social Media and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Tourism IndustryImpact of AI and Tech-Driven Solutions in Hospitality and Tourism10.4018/979-8-3693-6755-1.ch013(235-256)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-6755-1.ch013
Orwat C(2024)Algorithmic Discrimination From the Perspective of Human DignitySocial Inclusion10.17645/si.716012Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7160
Koh SKim BJo S(2024)Understanding the User Perception and Experience of Interactive Algorithmic Recourse CustomizationACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/367450331:3(1-25)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674503
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
1. Human-centered computing
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Computing / technology policy

Recommendations

Factors in Fairness and Emotion in Online Case Resolution Systems
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Courts are increasingly adopting online information and communication technology, creating a need to consider the potential consequences of these tools for the justice system. Using survey responses from 209 litigants who had recently used an online ...
Trouble at Sea: Data and digital technology challenges for maritime human rights concerns
FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Recent years have revealed the severity and scale of human rights abuses at sea. Yet maritime human rights investigations remain challenging due to an array of difficulties, including physical inaccessibility and a complex legal environment. Improving ...
The Bangladesh Justice Audit
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

The Bangladesh Constitution guarantees human rights, freedom, equality, justice and rule of law for all citizens. Article 33(1) ensures the rights for each citizen to legal support and article 35(3) affirms that every person accused of a criminal ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2018

8489 pages

ISBN:9781450356206

DOI:10.1145/3173574

General Chairs:
Regan Mandryk
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
Mark Hancock
University of Waterloo, Canada
,
Program Chairs:
Mark Perry
Brunel University London, UK
,
Anna Cox
University College London, UK

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 April 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Conference

CHI '18

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '18: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 21 - 26, 2018

Montreal QC, Canada

Acceptance Rates

CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 666 of 2,590 submissions, 26%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,118 of 25,963 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

31
Total Citations
View Citations
4,459
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)868
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)93

Reflects downloads up to 04 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kaur HSharma SGuleria S(2024)Navigating the Digital Landscape With the Integration of Social Media and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Tourism IndustryImpact of AI and Tech-Driven Solutions in Hospitality and Tourism10.4018/979-8-3693-6755-1.ch013(235-256)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-6755-1.ch013
Orwat C(2024)Algorithmic Discrimination From the Perspective of Human DignitySocial Inclusion10.17645/si.716012Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7160
Koh SKim BJo S(2024)Understanding the User Perception and Experience of Interactive Algorithmic Recourse CustomizationACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/367450331:3(1-25)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674503
Benjamin JLindley JEdwards ERubegni EKorjakow TGrist DSharkey R(2024)Responding to Generative AI Technologies with Research-through-Design: The Ryelands AI Lab as an Exploratory StudyProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660677(1823-1841)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660677
Stumpf STaka ENakao YLuo LSonoda RYokota TBoratto LGena CMarras MGermanakos PPopescus E(2024)The Need for User-centred Assessment of AI Fairness and CorrectnessAdjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3631700.3664912(523-527)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631700.3664912
Deck LSchoeffer JDe-Arteaga MKühl N(2024)A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AIProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658990(1579-1595)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658990
Loefflad CGrossklags J(2024)How the Types of Consequences in Social Scoring Systems Shape People's Perceptions and Behavioral ReactionsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658986(1515-1530)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658986
Lünich MKeller B(2024)Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Academic Performance Prediction. An Experimental Study on the Impact of Accuracy and Simplicity of Decision Trees on Causability and Fairness PerceptionsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658953(1031-1042)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658953
Naudts L(2024)The Digital Faces of Oppression and Domination: A Relational and Egalitarian Perspective on the Data-driven Society and its RegulationProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658934(701-712)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658934
Trivedi CBhattacharya PPrasad VPatel VSingh ATanwar SSharma RAluvala SPau GSharma G(2024)Explainable AI for Industry 5.0: Vision, Architecture, and Potential DirectionsIEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications10.1109/OJIA.2024.33990575(177-208)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/OJIA.2024.3399057
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents