Rating AI systems for bias to promote trustable applications
Abstract
New decision-support systems are being built using AI services that draw insights from a large corpus of data and incorporate those insights in human-in-the-loop decision environments. They promise to transform businesses, such as health care, with better, affordable, and timely decisions. However, it will be unreasonable to expect people to trust AI systems out of the box if they have been shown to exhibit discrimination across a variety of data usages: unstructured text, structured data, or images. Thus, AI systems come with certain risks, such as failing to recognize people or objects, introducing errors in their output, and leading to unintended harm. In response, we propose ratings as a way to communicate bias risk and methods to rate AI services for bias in a black-box fashion without accessing services training data. Our method is designed not only to work on single services, but also the composition of services, which is how complex AI applications are built. Thus, the proposed method can be used to rate a composite application, like a chatbot, for the severity of its bias by rating its constituent services and then composing the rating, rather than rating the whole system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Inherent risks of AI in healthcare primarily stem from system errors, while patient privacy concerns can hinder data accessibility.
“Inherent risks primarily stem from system errors (Srivastava & Rossi, 2019;Dwivedi et al., 2021), while patient privacy concerns can hinder data accessibility.”
From Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation (2024) · cites this paper as Srivastava & Rossi, 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Srivastava, B., & Rossi, F.
- Venue
- IBM Journal of Research and Development
- Publisher
- IBM
- Published
- 2019-07-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 4/5
- Pages
- 5:1-5:9
- ISSN
- 0018-8646 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2969363904
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IBM Journal of Research and Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- algorithmic bias, trust in AI, service composition, chatbots, human-in-the-loop decision support, algorithmic discrimination
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