LUCID: Exposing Algorithmic Bias through Inverse Design
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI systems can create, propagate, support, and automate bias in decision-making processes. To mitigate biased decisions, we both need to understand the origin of the bias and define what it means for an algorithm to make fair decisions. Most group fairness notions assess a model's equality of outcome by computing statistical metrics on the outputs. We argue that these output metrics encounter intrinsic obstacles and present a complementary approach that aligns with the increasing focus on equality of treatment. By Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design (LUCID), we generate a canonical set that shows the desired inputs for a model given a preferred output. The canonical set reveals the model's internal logic and exposes potential unethical biases by repeatedly interrogating the decision-making process. We evaluate LUCID on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and find that some biases detected by a canonical set differ from those of output metrics. The results show that by shifting the focus towards equality of treatment and looking into the algorithm's internal workings, the canonical sets are a valuable addition to the toolbox of algorithmic fairness evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2022.
Builds on
19 of 48 references.
References · 19
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
- 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 388
- 2020Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Surveycited by 252
- 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
- 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 192
- 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
7 more
- 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 139
- 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
- 2021Towards the Unification and Robustness of Perturbation and Gradient Based Explanationscited by 47
- 2022The Road to Explainability is Paved with Bias: Measuring the Fairness of Explanationscited by 41
- 2021Explainable AI: current status and future directionscited by 32
- 2020Benchmarking deep inverse models over time, and the neural-adjoint methodcited by 28
- 2018Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretabilitycited by 16
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
2 papers.