K. Natesan Ramamurthy

Bio: K. Natesan Ramamurthy is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Service provider & Declaration. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 227 citations.

AI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias

Abstract: Fairness is an increasingly important concern as machine learning models are used to support decision making in high-stakes applications such as mortgage lending, hiring, and prison sentencing. This article introduces a new open-source Python toolkit for algorithmic fairness, AI Fairness 360 (AIF360), released under an Apache v2.0 license ( https://github.com/ibm/aif360 ). The main objectives of this toolkit are to help facilitate the transition of fairness research algorithms for use in an industrial setting and to provide a common framework for fairness researchers to share and evaluate algorithms. The package includes a comprehensive set of fairness metrics for datasets and models, explanations for these metrics, and algorithms to mitigate bias in datasets and models. It also includes an interactive Web experience that provides a gentle introduction to the concepts and capabilities for line-of-business users, researchers, and developers to extend the toolkit with their new algorithms and improvements and to use it for performance benchmarking. A built-in testing infrastructure maintains code quality.

FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier's declarations of conformity

Abstract: Accuracy is an important concern for suppliers of artificial intelligence (AI) services, but considerations beyond accuracy, such as safety (which includes fairness and explainability), security, and provenance, are also critical elements to engender consumers’ trust in a service. Many industries use transparent, standardized, but often not legally required documents called supplier's declarations of conformity (SDoCs) to describe the lineage of a product along with the safety and performance testing it has undergone. SDoCs may be considered multidimensional fact sheets that capture and quantify various aspects of the product and its development to make it worthy of consumers’ trust. In this article, inspired by this practice, we propose FactSheets to help increase trust in AI services. We envision such documents to contain purpose, performance, safety, security, and provenance information to be completed by AI service providers for examination by consumers. We suggest a comprehensive set of declaration items tailored to AI in the Appendix of this article.

Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims

Abstract: With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.

Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructure

Abstract: Datasets that power machine learning are often used, shared, and reused with little visibility into the processes of deliberation that led to their creation. As artificial intelligence systems are increasingly used in high-stakes tasks, system development and deployment practices must be adapted to address the very real consequences of how model development data is constructed and used in practice. This includes greater transparency about data, and accountability for decisions made when developing it. In this paper, we introduce a rigorous framework for dataset development transparency that supports decision-making and accountability. The framework uses the cyclical, infrastructural and engineering nature of dataset development to draw on best practices from the software development lifecycle. Each stage of the data development lifecycle yields documents that facilitate improved communication and decision-making, as well as drawing attention to the value and necessity of careful data work. The proposed framework makes visible the often overlooked work and decisions that go into dataset creation, a critical step in closing the accountability gap in artificial intelligence and a critical/necessary resource aligned with recent work on auditing processes.

Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable, Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems

Abstract: This article attempts to bridge the gap between widely discussed ethical principles of Human-centered AI (HCAI) and practical steps for effective governance. Since HCAI systems are developed and implemented in multiple organizational structures, I propose 15 recommendations at three levels of governance: team, organization, and industry. The recommendations are intended to increase the reliability, safety, and trustworthiness of HCAI systems: (1) reliable systems based on sound software engineering practices, (2) safety culture through business management strategies, and (3) trustworthy certification by independent oversight. Software engineering practices within teams include audit trails to enable analysis of failures, software engineering workflows, verification and validation testing, bias testing to enhance fairness, and explainable user interfaces. The safety culture within organizations comes from management strategies that include leadership commitment to safety, hiring and training oriented to safety, extensive reporting of failures and near misses, internal review boards for problems and future plans, and alignment with industry standard practices. The trustworthiness certification comes from industry-wide efforts that include government interventions and regulation, accounting firms conducting external audits, insurance companies compensating for failures, non-governmental and civil society organizations advancing design principles, and professional organizations and research institutes developing standards, policies, and novel ideas. The larger goal of effective governance is to limit the dangers and increase the benefits of HCAI to individuals, organizations, and society.

How do Data Science Workers Collaborate? Roles, Workflows, and Tools

Abstract: Today, the prominence of data science within organizations has given rise to teams of data science workers collaborating on extracting insights from data, as opposed to individual data scientists working alone. However, we still lack a deep understanding of how data science workers collaborate in practice. In this work, we conducted an online survey with 183 participants who work in various aspects of data science. We focused on their reported interactions with each other (e.g., managers with engineers) and with different tools (e.g., Jupyter Notebook). We found that data science teams are extremely collaborative and work with a variety of stakeholders and tools during the six common steps of a data science workflow (e.g., clean data and train model). We also found that the collaborative practices workers employ, such as documentation, vary according to the kinds of tools they use. Based on these findings, we discuss design implications for supporting data science team collaborations and future research directions.

Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approaches.

Abstract: Explanations in Machine Learning come in many forms, but a consensus regarding their desired properties is yet to emerge. In this paper we introduce a taxonomy and a set of descriptors that can be used to characterise and systematically assess explainable systems along five key dimensions: functional, operational, usability, safety and validation. In order to design a comprehensive and representative taxonomy and associated descriptors we surveyed the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence literature, extracting the criteria and desiderata that other authors have proposed or implicitly used in their research. The survey includes papers introducing new explainability algorithms to see what criteria are used to guide their development and how these algorithms are evaluated, as well as papers proposing such criteria from both computer science and social science perspectives. This novel framework allows to systematically compare and contrast explainability approaches, not just to better understand their capabilities but also to identify discrepancies between their theoretical qualities and properties of their implementations. We developed an operationalisation of the framework in the form of Explainability Fact Sheets, which enable researchers and practitioners alike to quickly grasp capabilities and limitations of a particular explainable method. When used as a Work Sheet, our taxonomy can guide the development of new explainability approaches by aiding in their critical evaluation along the five proposed dimensions.