Cited by 87Ethics and Social Impacts of AIGame Theory and Voting SystemsAI and HR Technologies

Diversity and Inclusion Metrics in Subset Selection

Open access
Mitchell, Margaret, Baker, Dylan, Moorosi, Nyalleng, Denton, Remi, Hutchinson, Ben, Hanna, Alex, Gebru, Timnit, Morgenstern, Jamie·2020·Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

The ethical concept of fairness has recently been applied in machine learning (ML) settings to describe a wide range of constraints and objectives. When considering the relevance of ethical concepts to subset selection problems, the concepts of diversity and inclusion are additionally applicable in order to create outputs that account for social power and access differentials. We introduce metrics based on these concepts, which can be applied together, separately, and in tandem with additional fairness constraints. Results from human subject experiments lend support to the proposed criteria. Social choice methods can additionally be leveraged to aggregate and choose preferable sets, and we detail how these may be applied.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3375627.3375832

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithmic bias can amplify and exacerbate existing social, cultural, or historical biases, leading to unfair treatment or discrimination against certain individuals or groups.

    “It can amplify and exacerbate existing social, cultural, or historical biases, leading to unfair treatment or discrimination against certain individuals or groups [50-52].”

    From Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care (2023) · cites this paper as [52]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Nima Anari, Shayan Oveis Gharan, and Alireza Rezaei. 2016. Monte Carlo Markov chain algorithms for sampling strongly Rayleigh distributions and determinantal point processes. In Conference on Learning Theory. 103-115.
  2. Ellen Berrey. 2015. The Enigma of Diversity: The Language of Race and the Limits of Racial Justice. University of Chicago Press.
  3. L. Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. 2017. Ranking with Fairness Constraints. CoRR abs/1704.06840 (2017). arXiv:1704.06840 http://arxiv. org/abs/1704.06840 · arXiv
  4. Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C Plaut, Caitlin Handron, and Lauren Hudson. 2013. The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex roles 69, 1-2 (2013), 58-71.
  5. Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. 2016. Why Diversity Programs Fail and What Works Better. Harvard Business Review 94, 7-8 (2016), 52-60.
  6. Marina Drosou, HV Jagadish, Evaggelia Pitoura, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2017. Diversity in big data: A review. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 73-84.
  7. David G Embrick. 2011. The diversity ideology in the business world: A new oppression for a new age. Critical sociology 37, 5 (2011), 541-556.
  8. Boqing Gong, Wei-Lun Chao, Kristen Grauman, and Fei Sha. 2014. Diverse sequential subset selection for supervised video summarization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2069-2077.
  9. Robert H MacArthur. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological reviews 40, 4 (1965), 510-533.
  10. John Rawls. 1974. Some reasons for the maximin criterion. The American Economic Review 64, 2 (1974), 141-146.
  11. Samira Samadi, Uthaipon Tantipongpipat, Jamie H Morgenstern, Mohit Singh, and Santosh Vempala. 2018. The price of fair PCA: One extra dimension. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 10976-10987.
  12. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2017. Equality of opportunity in rank- ings. In Workshop on Prioritizing Online Content (WPOC) at NIPS.
  13. Robert Harding Whittaker. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological monographs 30, 3 (1960), 279-338.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mitchell, M., Baker, D., Moorosi, N., Denton, R., Hutchinson, B., Hanna, A., Gebru, T., & Morgenstern, J.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-02-07
Pages
117-123
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005222337
Cited by
87
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5
FWCI
15.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
diversity, inclusion, subset selection, fairness metrics, social choice, social power, fairness constraints, human subjects research, algorithmic fairness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review