Mitigating subjectivity and bias in AI development indices: A robust approach to redefining country rankings

ArXiv Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2402.10122
B. S. Campello, G. D. Pelegrina, R. Pelissari, Ricardo Suyama, L. T. Duarte
{"title":"Mitigating subjectivity and bias in AI development indices: A robust approach to redefining country rankings","authors":"B. S. Campello, G. D. Pelegrina, R. Pelissari, Ricardo Suyama, L. T. Duarte","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2402.10122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Countries worldwide have been implementing different actions national strategies for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to shape policy priorities and guide their development concerning AI. Several AI indices have emerged to assess countries' progress in AI development, aiding decision-making on investments and policy choices. Typically, these indices combine multiple indicators using linear additive methods such as weighted sums, although they are limited in their ability to account for interactions among indicators. Another limitation concerns the use of deterministic weights, which can be perceived as subjective and vulnerable to debate and scrutiny, especially by nations that feel disadvantaged. Aiming at mitigating these problems, we conduct a methodological analysis to derive AI indices based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Initially, we assess correlations between different AI dimensions and employ the Choquet integral to model them. Thus, we apply the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) to conduct a sensitivity analysis using both weighted sum and Choquet integral in order to evaluate the stability of the indices with regard the weights. Finally, we introduce a novel ranking methodology based on SMAA, which considers several sets of weights to derive the ranking of countries. As a result, instead of using predefined weights, in the proposed approach, the ranking is achieved based on the probabilities of countries in occupying a specific position. In the computational analysis, we utilize the data employed in The Global AI Index proposed by Tortoise. Results reveal correlations in the data, and our approach effectively mitigates bias. In the sensitivity analysis, we scrutinize changes in the ranking resulting from weight adjustments. We demonstrate that our proposal rankings closely align with those derived from weight variations, proving to be more robust.","PeriodicalId":8425,"journal":{"name":"ArXiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ArXiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.10122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Countries worldwide have been implementing different actions national strategies for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to shape policy priorities and guide their development concerning AI. Several AI indices have emerged to assess countries' progress in AI development, aiding decision-making on investments and policy choices. Typically, these indices combine multiple indicators using linear additive methods such as weighted sums, although they are limited in their ability to account for interactions among indicators. Another limitation concerns the use of deterministic weights, which can be perceived as subjective and vulnerable to debate and scrutiny, especially by nations that feel disadvantaged. Aiming at mitigating these problems, we conduct a methodological analysis to derive AI indices based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Initially, we assess correlations between different AI dimensions and employ the Choquet integral to model them. Thus, we apply the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) to conduct a sensitivity analysis using both weighted sum and Choquet integral in order to evaluate the stability of the indices with regard the weights. Finally, we introduce a novel ranking methodology based on SMAA, which considers several sets of weights to derive the ranking of countries. As a result, instead of using predefined weights, in the proposed approach, the ranking is achieved based on the probabilities of countries in occupying a specific position. In the computational analysis, we utilize the data employed in The Global AI Index proposed by Tortoise. Results reveal correlations in the data, and our approach effectively mitigates bias. In the sensitivity analysis, we scrutinize changes in the ranking resulting from weight adjustments. We demonstrate that our proposal rankings closely align with those derived from weight variations, proving to be more robust.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减少人工智能发展指数中的主观性和偏见:重新定义国家排名的稳健方法
世界各国一直在实施不同的人工智能(AI)国家战略行动,以制定政策优先事项并指导其人工智能发展。一些人工智能指数已经出现,用于评估各国在人工智能发展方面的进展,帮助各国做出投资决策和政策选择。通常情况下,这些指数采用加权总和等线性相加方法将多个指标结合起来,但在考虑指标之间的相互作用方面能力有限。另一个局限性是使用确定性权重,这可能被视为主观的,容易受到争论和审查,特别是那些认为自己处于不利地位的国家。为了缓解这些问题,我们开展了一项方法分析,在多重标准决策分析的基础上得出人工智能指数。首先,我们评估了人工智能不同维度之间的相关性,并采用 Choquet 积分对其进行建模。然后,我们运用随机多标准可接受性分析法(SMAA),使用加权和与乔克特积分进行敏感性分析,以评估指数在权重方面的稳定性。最后,我们在 SMAA 的基础上引入了一种新的排名方法,该方法考虑了多组权重来得出国家排名。因此,在所提出的方法中,不是使用预先确定的权重,而是根据各国占据特定位置的概率进行排序。在计算分析中,我们利用了 Tortoise 提出的全球人工智能指数中使用的数据。结果显示了数据中的相关性,我们的方法有效地减少了偏差。在敏感性分析中,我们仔细研究了权重调整导致的排名变化。我们的结果表明,我们的建议排名与权重变化得出的排名非常接近,证明我们的方法更加稳健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Learning temporal relationships between symbols with Laplace Neural Manifolds. Probabilistic Genotype-Phenotype Maps Reveal Mutational Robustness of RNA Folding, Spin Glasses, and Quantum Circuits. Reliability of energy landscape analysis of resting-state functional MRI data. The Dynamic Sensorium competition for predicting large-scale mouse visual cortex activity from videos. LinearAlifold: Linear-Time Consensus Structure Prediction for RNA Alignments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1