Nicholas Schmidt

Patrick Hall, Navdeep Gill, Nicholas Schmidt

Explainable machine learning (ML) enables human learning from ML, human appeal of automated model decisions, regulatory compliance, and security audits of ML models. Explainable ML (i.e. explainable artificial intelligence or XAI) has been implemented in numerous open source and commercial packages and explainable ML is also an important, mandatory, or embedded aspect of commercial predictive modeling in industries like financial services. However, like many technologies, explainable ML can be misused, particularly as a faulty safeguard for harmful black-boxes, e.g. fairwashing or scaffolding, and for other malevolent purposes like stealing models and sensitive training data. To promote best-practice discussions for this already in-flight technology, this short text presents internal definitions and a few examples before covering the proposed guidelines. This text concludes with a seemingly natural argument for the use of interpretable models and explanatory, debugging, and disparate impact testing methods in life- or mission-critical ML systems.

Nicholas Schmidt, Bryce Stephens

There is substantial evidence that Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms can generate bias against minorities, women, and other protected classes. Federal and state laws have been enacted to protect consumers from discrimination in credit, housing, and employment, where regulators and agencies are tasked with enforcing these laws. Additionally, there are laws in place to ensure that consumers understand why they are denied access to services and products, such as consumer loans. In this article, we provide an overview of the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of algorithms and data, and focus specifically on fairness. While our observations generalize to many contexts, we focus on the fairness concerns raised in consumer credit and the legal requirements of the Equal Credit and Opportunity Act. We propose a methodology for evaluating algorithmic fairness and minimizing algorithmic bias that aligns with the provisions of federal and state anti-discrimination statutes that outlaw overt, disparate treatment, and, specifically, disparate impact discrimination. We argue that while the use of AI and ML algorithms heighten potential discrimination risks, these risks can be evaluated and mitigated, but doing so requires a deep understanding of these algorithms and the contexts and domains in which they are being used.