EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders

Numerous fairness metrics have been proposed and employed by artificial intelligence (AI) experts to quantitatively measure bias and define fairness in AI models. Recognizing the need to accommodate stakeholders' diverse fairness understandings, efforts are underway to solicit their input. However, conveying AI fairness metrics to stakeholders without AI expertise, capturing their personal preferences, and seeking a collective consensus remain challenging and underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a new framework, EARN ( Explain, Ask, Review, and Negotiate ) Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise. The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to Explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection. To gather empirical results, we applied the framework to a credit rating scenario and conducted a user study involving 18 decision subjects without AI knowledge. We elicited their personal metric preferences and subsequently we studied how they reached metric consensus in team sessions. Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework supports stakeholders to express and negotiate fairness preferences, and we provide practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts. Through this approach, we aim to reach consensus of fairness perspectives, fostering more equitable and inclusive AI fairness.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2025-05-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3710908
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders

Simone Stumpf, Hiroya Inakoshi, Mathieu Chollet, Yuri Nakao et al.
1 citations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders

Simone Stumpf, Hiroya Inakoshi, Mathieu Chollet, Yuri Nakao, Lin Luo
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Numerous fairness metrics have been proposed and employed by artificial intelligence (AI) experts to quantitatively measure bias and define fairness in AI models. Recognizing the need to accommodate stakeholders' diverse fairness understandings, efforts are underway to solicit their input. However, conveying AI fairness metrics to stakeholders without AI expertise, capturing their personal preferences, and seeking a collective consensus remain challenging and underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a new framework, EARN ( Explain, Ask, Review, and Negotiate ) Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise. The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to Explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection. To gather empirical results, we applied the framework to a credit rating scenario and conducted a user study involving 18 decision subjects without AI knowledge. We elicited their personal metric preferences and subsequently we studied how they reached metric consensus in team sessions. Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework supports stakeholders to express and negotiate fairness preferences, and we provide practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts. Through this approach, we aim to reach consensus of fairness perspectives, fostering more equitable and inclusive AI fairness.

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionVol. 9(2)
Fujitsu (Japan) (JP), The University of Tokyo (JP), University of Glasgow (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.