Search

The topic of algorithmic fairness is of increasing importance to the Human–Computer Interaction research community following accumulating concerns regarding the use and deployment of Artificial Intelligence-based systems. How we conduct research on algorithmic fairness directly influences our inferences and conclusions regarding algorithmic fairness. To better understand the methodological decisions of studies focused on people's perceptions of algorithmic fairness, we systematic analysed relevant papers from the CHI and FAccT conferences. We identified 200 relevant papers published between 1993 and 2022 and assessed their study design, participant sample, and geographical location of participants and authors. Our results highlight that studies are predominantly cross-sectional, cover a wide range of participant roles, and that both authors and participants are primarily from the United States. Based on these findings, we reflect on the potential pitfalls and shortcomings in how the community studies algorithmic fairness. • Mapping of CHI and FAccT papers on algorithmic fairness published 1993–2022. • Over one-third of papers miss details on participant locality and compensation. • Algorithmic fairness research largely restricted to US and other Western countries. • Limited cross-country collaboration, most study samples from a single country. • Remote studies are most common, longitudinal studies are relatively rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Reputation is crucial to enabling human or software agents to select among alternative providers. Although several effective reputation assessment methods exist, they typically distil reputation into a numerical representation, with no accompanying explanation of the rationale behind the assessment. Such explanations would allow users or clients to make a richer assessment of providers, and tailor selection according to their preferences and current context. In this paper, we propose an approach to explain the rationale behind assessments from quantitative reputation models, by generating arguments that are combined to form explanations. Our approach adapts, extends and combines existing approaches for explaining decisions made using multi-attribute decision models in the context of reputation. We present example argument templates, and describe how to select their parameters using explanation algorithms. Our proposal was evaluated by means of a user study, which followed an existing protocol. Our results give evidence that although explanations present a subset of the information of trust scores, they are sufficient to equally evaluate providers recommended based on their trust score. Moreover, when explanation arguments reveal implicit model information, they are less persuasive than scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]