AI-EDI-SPACE: A Co-designed Dataset for Evaluating the Quality of Public Spaces
Extracted source text · arXiv 2411.00956
% CVPR 2024 Paper Template; see https://github.com/cvpr-org/author-kit
\documentclass[10pt,twocolumn,letterpaper]{article}
%%%%%%%%% PAPER TYPE - PLEASE UPDATE FOR FINAL VERSION
% \usepackage{cvpr} % To produce the CAMERA-READY version
% \usepackage[review]{cvpr} % To produce the REVIEW version
\usepackage[pagenumbers]{cvpr} % To force page numbers, e.g. for an arXiv version
% Import additional packages in the preamble file, before hyperref
\input{preamble}
% It is strongly recommended to use hyperref, especially for the review version.
% hyperref with option pagebackref eases the reviewers' job.
% Please disable hyperref *only* if you encounter grave issues,
% e.g. with the file validation for the camera-ready version.
%
% If you comment hyperref and then uncomment it, you should delete *.aux before re-running LaTeX.
% (Or just hit 'q' on the first LaTeX run, let it finish, and you should be clear).
\definecolor{cvprblue}{rgb}{0.21,0.49,0.74}
\usepackage[pagebackref,breaklinks,colorlinks,citecolor=cvprblue]{hyperref}
%%%%%%%%% PAPER ID - PLEASE UPDATE
\def\paperID{8} % *** Enter the Paper ID here
\def\confName{CVPR}
\def\confYear{2024}
%%%%%%%%% TITLE - PLEASE UPDATE
\title{AI-EDI-SPACE: A Co-designed Dataset for Evaluating the Quality of Public Spaces}
%%%%%%%%% AUTHORS - PLEASE UPDATE
\author{Shreeyash Gowaikar$^{1}$\thanks{Work done while interning at Chaire Unesco en Paysage Urbain.}\quad
Hugo Berard$^{2}$\thanks{Correspondance to hugo.berard@umontreal.ca}\quad
Rashid Mushkani$^{2}$\quad
Emmanuel Beaudry Marchand$^{2}$ \vspace{0.3em} \\
Toumadher Ammar$^{2}$\quad
Shin Koseki$^{2}$ \vspace{0.6em} \\
{\normalsize $^1$Birla Institute of Technology and Science} \\
{\normalsize$^2$Chaire UNESCO en Paysage Urbain, Université de Montréal}
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\input{sec/0_abstract}
\input{sec/1_intro}
\input{sec/2_dataset}
\input{sec/Experiments/3_experiments}
\input{sec/7_conclusion}
{
\small
\bibliographystyle{ieeenat_fullname}
\bibliography{main}
}
\clearpage
\appendix
\input{sec/X_suppl}
\end{document}
%
% --- inline annotations
%
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\newcommand{\red}[1]{{\color{red}#1}}
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\color{red}#1}}
\newcommand{\TODO}[1]{\textbf{\color{red}[TODO: #1]}}
% --- disable by uncommenting
% \renewcommand{\TODO}[1]{}
% \renewcommand{\todo}[1]{#1}
\begin{abstract}
Advancements in AI heavily rely on large-scale datasets meticulously curated and annotated for training. However, concerns persist regarding the transparency and context of data collection methodologies, especially when sourced through crowdsourcing platforms. Crowdsourcing often employs low-wage workers with poor working conditions and lacks consideration for the representativeness of annotators, leading to algorithms that fail to represent diverse views and perpetuate biases against certain groups. To address these limitations, we propose a methodology involving a co-design model that actively engages stakeholders at key stages, integrating principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) to ensure diverse viewpoints. We apply this methodology to develop a dataset and AI model for evaluating public space quality using street view images, demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing diverse perspectives and fostering higher-quality data.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Current advancements in AI heavily rely on the availability of large-scale datasets meticulously curated and annotated for training purposes. The significance of such datasets has been underscored by the success of models like ChatGPT, which leverages Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) to fine-tune models based on human input \citep{achiam2023gpt}. However, concerns persist regarding the transparency and context of data collection methodologies, particularly in instances where annotations are sourced through crowdsourcing platforms. For instance, reports indicate that annotations for training ChatGPT were gathered from workers in Kenya under conditions of low pay and poor labor standards \citep{perrigo2023openai}. This reliance on crowdsourcing, often driven by cost-effectiveness, perpetuates the invisibility and exploitation of workers, particularly those from the global south \citep{gray2019ghost}.
Moreover, the failure to acknowledge the socio-cultural context within which data is produced can introduce biases into datasets. For example, algorithms trained on datasets devoid of the historical context of segregation may inadvertently perpetuate biases against certain minority groups \citep{jeff_larson_how_nodate}. Furthermore, the identities of workers involved in annotations are frequently overlooked, leading to a lack of diversity in viewpoints captured within datasets. This bias is compounded by the common practice of aggregating annotations through majority voting \citep{davani2022dealing}.
To address these limitations, we propose a methodology grounded in a specific socio-cultural context for dataset collection and AI model development. Our approach centers on a co-design model that actively involves stakeholders at key stages of the AI model development, including dataset creation. Additionally, we integrate principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) to ensure diverse viewpoints are represented within the dataset. We argue that this approach not only mitigates biases within datasets but also fosters the creation of higher-quality data reflecting diverse perspectives.
We apply this methodology to the development of a dataset and AI model capable of evaluating the quality of public spaces using street view images. Assessing public space quality is inherently subjective, as demonstrated by research showing variations across cultural groups \citep{lussault2009lutte,enos2017space}. Leveraging our proposed methodology grounded in co-design and EDI principles, we curated a dataset of streetview images annotated by a diverse group of citizens. Using this dataset, we trained a baseline AI model to score public space images along various dimensions. Finally, we propose several fairness metrics to assess the model's ability to capture diverse viewpoints within the population.
% The proposed methodology was produced in the context of applying AI to urban planning to make public spaces more inclusive.. Several type of approaches have been proposed to evaluate the quality of public spaces. Classical systemic approaches for example look at the number and diversity of users, and at the temporality and density of uses \citep{}. Classical Ethnographic approaches judge the quality of public spaces based on user experiences, through the emotional and memorial ties of users to certain spaces \citep{}, while highlighting how the quality of public spaces differs across different cultural groups \citep{}. While such approach can be very informative they are hard to scale. To complement those approaches, we propose a new approach that uses AI to evaluate the quality of public spaces from streetview images.
% The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored both the significance of public spaces and the disparate access experienced by minorities \citep{}. Public spaces serve as democratic forums crucial for fostering community engagement and social cohesion. However, their inclusivity, representativeness, and accessibility often fall short, necessitating novel methodologies for evaluation. While various approaches, such as in-situ observations, have been proposed, they frequently overlook the potential insights offered by AI-driven analyses [mention some approaches and their limitations].
% In response, we propose a new AI-based methodology for assessing the quality and inclusivity of public spaces, anchored in the creation of an inclusive dataset of images annotated by a diverse cohort of citizens, representative of minority perspectives. We demonstrate how such a dataset can inform the training of AI models capable of evaluating public spaces while elucidating associated challenges.
% Our contributions to the discourse on responsible data are threefold:
% We present a methodology for producing inclusive datasets.
% We apply this methodology to create a dataset for evaluating the quality and preferences of public spaces.
% We train a baseline model on this dataset and highlight challenges associated with its implementation.
% [Add a paragraph that clearly expplain the project]
% AI algorithms aimed at enhancing human life quality have become commonplace in our day-to-day lives.
% However, as AI algorithms continue to be adopted in our lives, there is an increasing requirement to make the algorithms fair to avoid bias against a group of people.
% Fairness and biases in AI algorithms have been studied extensively \cite{mehrabi_survey_2022}.
% Suresh and Guttag \cite{suresh_framework_2021} provide a robust classification of biases and explain the different stages in the machine learning pipeline from where AI bias creeps into the pipeline.
% While collecting data, the inherent diversity in a dataset’s participant pool leads to a difference in the number of people who share the same opinions and preferences.
% As a result, the dataset often has a representation bias. Furthermore, studies have shown that these biases in the data are magnified through a machine-learning algorithm \cite{satell_ai_nodate}.
% To make AI Algorithms fair and unbiased, studies usually focus on identifying protected attributes that contribute to the diversity within the dataset and trying to make AI algorithms unbiased by enhancing equality amongst the subjects with and without the protected attributes during prediction and inference.
% Protected attributes are attributes that may not be used for the basis of decision processes \cite{noauthor_protected_nodate}.
% For example, COMPAS \cite{jeff_larson_how_nodate} was a commercial recidivism prediction tool used to predict the recidivism risk for an offender.
% However, it was found that COMPAS was biased because of the inherent biases from the dataset \cite{gursoy_equal_2022}.
% But with clever feature selection over protected attributes like gender and race, the decision-making algorithm could become fairer \cite{grgic-hlaca_case_2016}.
% However, the majority of studies done in fairness for ML focus on the equality of an algorithm and more work needs to be done to create an equitable AI algorithm \cite{mehrabi_survey_2022}.
% Additionally, with the recent increase in the popularity of Generative AI, to preserve the views, interests, and votes of the minorities present in the dataset, the generation of content should be made equitable to the data's participants.
% This notion of preserving features in the generated content is defined as feature equity by the World Economic Forum \cite{noauthor_data_nodate}.
% The problem of feature equity is particularly relevant for score-based or voting-based datasets, where participants evaluate and score alternatives subjectively.
% Such datasets are widely used to train Recommender Systems that aim to suggest and recommend different alternatives to the users in a personalised way \cite{felfernig_overview_2021}.
% Recommender systems generally use datasets obtained from subjects' participation where a participant votes/scores a data value, either directly or indirectly, by choosing it over other alternatives.
% Equity in such datasets is relevant as all the participants are recommended to contribute to the final recommendation outcome with equal opportunity.
% As such datasets require the participant's opinions and personal inclinations, they are subjective and ridden with behavioural biases.
% In these voting-based datasets, such elements are visible in the “voting patterns” or “reviewing styles" \cite{allouah_robust_2022} of the participants.
% These add complication to aggregating the scores into a single preferential ranking.
% There is a sufficient variety in the voting patterns for every person, making it hard to differentiate between an outlier and a genuine data point.
% This is captured by the notion of sparse unanimity \cite{allouah_robust_2022}.
% Additionally, representation bias suppresses the preferences of minorities and glorifies the preferences of the majority.
% The model learns these induced biases from representation bias and sparse unanimity and, therefore, may be unable to give similar opportunities to individual and their viewpoints.
% Hence, we say that recommendation algorithms trained unrestrictedly on data with inherent biases are not “equitable” in their predictions.
% To illustrate these challenges, consider the following hypothetical example: Consider an experiment with only two types of participants, from groups A and B, scoring an alternative a for a particular task.
% The participants provide a score between 0.0 and 1.0, and we train an algorithm to predict the score given to the alternative by a participant.
% Let us assume the extreme case of only two types of participants participating in the evaluation survey.
% Assume that any participant from group A only evaluates in an extremes-only manner, always setting the value to 1.0 or 0.0.
% In contrast, assume that participants from group B are more conservative in their approach and set the value only between 0.5 +/- 0.01, that is, a value between 0.49 and 0.51, both bounds inclusive.
% While training the algorithm, if the algorithm is trained on a dataset collected from a pool of participants where there is an absolute majority of participants from group B and the algorithm is then tested/validated on evaluations from participants from group A, the algorithm will provide incorrect results but with a high train accuracy.
% The algorithm might label evaluations in its training data made by participants from group A as outliers or malicious/inaccurate data as these evaluations would be outside the definition of evaluations made by participants from group B.
% Considering the common mathematical definition of outliers as values with a deviation more than three times the standard deviation from the mean, the evaluations from group A would be flagged as outliers..
% Given this scenario, even though evaluations from both participants are genuine and reflect their personal biases, evaluations from participants from group A might be considered outliers.
% As machine learning algorithms generally rely on correlation rather than causal relationships \cite{satell_ai_nodate}, the algorithm will not consider the actual cause of the evaluations, which is the difference in voting patterns.
% The algorithm will learn the correlation of different votes and categories rather than the underlying distribution.
% Even though this example is hypothetical, versions of it are commonly found in the real world.
% For example, in a scientific peer-reviewing system \cite{allouah_robust_2022}, some reviewers might make modest judgements (‘weak reject/weak accept’) similar to participants from group B from our hypothetical example, whereas some reviewers might make definitive judgements (‘strong reject/strong accept’) that are similar to group A participants from our example.
% The problem of inherently different voting patterns of different users has become increasingly relevant in the societal push towards collaborative urban planning and urban management.
% Collaborative planning aims to include multiple stakeholders in the planning process by requesting their feedback on the design, planning and management of public spaces created by architects, designers and urban planners.
% While evaluating the inclusivity of public spaces, abled people, who are statistically higher in number, might have different viewpoints of inclusion as compared to specially-abled people, who are a clear statistical minority in our society.
% In this case, representation bias and the dataset not being sparsely unanimous both contribute to the minorities being suppressed and their views being misrepresented.
% However, in collaborative urban planning, it is important that the views and preferences of minorities are heard equitably and incorporated as feedback.
% In this study, we aim to reduce the latency of the entire feedback process by creating an equitable AI solution for collaborative urban planning and management.
% We have a dataset that we call the StreetView Image Dataset (SID), which consists of public perception of different public places as per different criteria like beauty, inclusivity, security and similar others.
% We have also trained a Computer Vision Algorithm to simulate the behaviour of the participants in the dataset, which returns the ranking of the images from the dataset as per different criteria of public perception.
% We have worked on defining and measuring the equity of the algorithm in such subjective datasets and highlighted its importance in this work.
% To summarize, in this study, we propose a novel outlook to evaluate the equity of an algorithm trained for the ranking alternatives.
% We provide empirical results by defining and evaluating novel equity metrics on the task created for ranking Streetview images to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion of minorities in the Urban Planning Process.
% \subsection{Related Work}
% The majority of work in equity and equal opportunity has been done in the field of classification or regression.
% Fairness in classification tasks relates to the classifier’s rate constraints \cite{narasimhan_pairwise_2019}.
% Equal Opportunity, as defined by \cite{hardt_equality_2016}, relates to equalising the classifier’s true positivity rates on the protected and unprotected groups. The true positivity rate is defined as the ratio of number of true positives to the predicted positives.
% In other words, a person from a protected and unprotected class should have an equal probability of being assigned a positive outcome.
% Other works include equalised odds \cite{hardt_equality_2016}, meaning a person from the negative class and a person from the positive class should have equal probability to be assigned a positive outcome, equal accuracy \cite{cotter_optimization_2019} that aims to equalise accuracy across protected and unprotected groups, and minimum accuracy \cite{cotter_optimization_2019} which aims to make sure each group has similar lower bounds in accuracy.
% There are a few works that study fairness in learning to rank tasks.
% A majority of the work focuses on list-wise definitions of fairness \cite{narasimhan_pairwise_2019}.
% Additionally, a few works have tried defining fairness and equal opportunity metrics using pairwise comparisons \cite{narasimhan_pairwise_2019, beutel_fairness_2019}.
% However, all of them approach the problem from the domain of the rankings rather than the domain of the participants who rank the problem.
% That is, these metrics try to provide equal opportunity to the alternatives being ranked so that each alternative has an equal opportunity to be ranked high and procure a high score instead of considering providing equal opportunity to the participants who ranked and scored the alternatives.
% They try to ensure the protected and unprotected groups are not discriminated against while being ranked high instead of giving equity to the participants who provided the scores for the alternatives and data for the task.
% So, in the context of ranking streetview images as per parameters for collaborative urban planning, if there is equity over the ranking domain, it implies that the streetview images have equal opportunity to be ranked higher without any mention of the participants who provided scores to the public places.
% However, if the participants have equity, it will imply that the participants have equal opportunity to affect the ranking.
% Hence, if there is a specially-abled person in the participants' pool, they should have equal opportunity to present their views to the ranking, and their views should not be suppressed by our algorithm trying to learn the scoring of the majority of the other abled participants.
% Given this starkly different outlook, there are no prior works we could find when we searched Google Scholar using the keywords “Fairness”, “Equity”, “Equal Opportunity” + “Learning to Rank”, “Pairwise Ranking”, and “Machine Learning Ranking”.
% This can be attributed to the fact that most ranking problems consider the participants to be individualistically indistinguishable \cite{sawyer_utilities_1976} as they wish to aggregate the scores provided by the participants.
% Common Aggregation algorithms like standard normalisation and min-max normalisation \cite{allouah_robust_2022} consider all participants identical and hence try to equalise some attribute of the score (mean and standard deviation in standard normalisation and range in min-max normalisation).
% This also prevents the model from being biased towards a particular participant, as it cannot access the participant's protected attributes while training.
% However, aggregating scores by common procedures harms the equity of the participant as each participant must be considered unique, and we assume, for the sake of this study, that the scores provided by the participants for a learning-to-rank task genuinely reflect their own experiences and preferences.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/AI-EDI-SPACE_Methodology.pdf}
\caption{Methodology used to create the dataset and the AI model to evaluate the quality of public spaces.}
\label{figure:methodology}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology}
The methodology we propose is grounded in co-design and builds on EDI principles.
\paragraph{Co-design} also known as participatory design or co-creation, embodies an approach where stakeholders are actively engaged throughout the design process to ensure that the resulting products meet their needs and preferences \cite{asaro2000transforming}. Unlike conventional design methods, which may only involve users once a product is completed, co-design aims to integrate stakeholders at every phase of development. In the context of AI, we argue that a methodology based on co-design can mitigate bias from algorithms and harm that can result from such bias. For example, a methodology based on co-design actively rejects the practice of crowdsourcing and instead seeks to involve stakeholders directly in the annotation process. The benefits of involving stakeholders are manifold:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Iterative Process}: The design process becomes iterative, allowing for feedback and refinement based on stakeholder input.
\item \textbf{Expertise}: Stakeholders can contribute their own experiences and expertise, ensuring that the data is of high quality and representative of diverse perspectives.
\item \textbf{Inclusivity}: Co-design fosters inclusivity by integrating diverse viewpoints and voices into the design process, which can lead to more fair algorithms that better serve all members of society.
\item \textbf{Shared Ownership}: Stakeholders possess a sense of ownership over the final AI, having actively participated in its creation from inception. This sense of ownership can lead to greater trust and acceptance of the technology.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)} principles are a foundational framework of values and practices aimed at fostering fairness, representation, and belonging within organizations, communities, and societies \cite{de2022picture}. Each component of EDI is integral to creating environments where all individuals have equitable opportunities to thrive, regardless of their background or identity. In the context of AI and dataset creation, we assert that EDI principles are paramount and should be carefully considered, particularly when selecting annotators. It is imperative to ensure that annotators represent a diverse range of experiences and viewpoints. By prioritizing diversity among annotators, we can ensure that all perspectives are comprehensively incorporated into the dataset. This inclusive approach not only enhances the richness and depth of the data but also promotes fairness and equity in the resulting algorithms and models.
\paragraph{}
Based on these principles, we have developed a methodology for creating a dataset and an AI model to evaluate the quality of public spaces using street-view images. An overview of the methodology is presented in Figure~\ref{figure:methodology}. The main phases of the methodology consist of participant recruitment, the organization of workshops to understand participants' concerns regarding public spaces and establish criteria for evaluating the quality of public spaces, the annotation of the images, and the AI model evaluation.
\paragraph{Participant Recruitment:} We focused on recruiting participants from underrepresented groups. A total of 28 participants were recruited to take part in the workshops and image annotations. Recruitment efforts targeted various community organizations representing diverse underrepresented groups. Among the participants, 20 identified as women, 5 as belonging to an ethnic minority, 2 as handicapped, 10 as members of the LGBTQ2+ community, and 2 as belonging to a religious minority see Appendix~\ref{app:participants}.
\paragraph{Identification of Evaluation Criteria:} To capture the diverse uses of public spaces, we defined 35 criteria for evaluating their quality. These criteria were identified through a two-phase process: initially through a literature review and subsequently refined through feedback and discussions obtained during individual interviews and focus groups. The full list of criteria is presented in Appendix~\ref{app:criteria}.
\section{Dataset}
To evaluate the quality of public spaces, we compiled a dataset of pairwise comparisons of street view images.
\paragraph{Images} The dataset comprises 7,833 street view images gathered from the Greater Montreal region. Sampling representative images from such a vast area poses challenges, as certain regions are more densely populated and diverse than others. To address this, we implemented a two-stage sampling strategy. Initially, we sampled a 50m by 50m grid covering the entire region and identified locations with street-view images nearby. Subsequently, we excluded locations without images within a vicinity of less than 1m. In the second stage, we randomly selected a subset of images from the remaining locations. This strategy aimed to boost the number of images sampled from regions with higher street view density, typically correlating with higher population density and more diverse public spaces.
\paragraph{Annotations} The dataset consists of 19,990 pairwise comparisons between two images. Participants were tasked with selecting the preferred image based on a given criterion using a cursor ranging from -1 to 1. Users could indicate their preference strength by adjusting the position of the cursor, see Appendix~\ref{app:software}. Negative values denoted a preference for the left image, positive values for the right, and values close to 0 indicated no preference. This scoring method, differing from simple binary choices, mitigates Arrow's impossibility theorem \cite{arrow_difficulty_1950}, as discussed by \cite{allouah_robust_2022}. Moreover, employing continuous scores allows for quantization into finite bins during training, offering added flexibility. However, this introduces complexities in voting patterns, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{voting_patterns}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \includegraphics{images/three_user_voting_patterns.pdf}
\caption{Voting Patterns Observed in the Streetview Dataset. It is a histogram of the absolute scores of 3 out of the 22 participants. }
\label{voting_patterns}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
\input{sec/Experiments/3.1_methodology}
\input{sec/Experiments/3.2_metrics}
\input{sec/Experiments/3.3_results}
\subsection{Methodology}
\label{methods}
% \subsubsection{Workflow}
The task is defined as a pairwise Learning-to-Rank Task.
The model indirectly learns the utility function of the user by predicting which image, amongst a pair, is given preference by the user.
The model outputs scores for each image, and we indirectly calculate the utility by taking the difference between the scores of two images from a comparison.
The workflow for the model is inspired by the workflow from the place-pulse 2.0 dataset \cite{dubey_deep_2016}.
The model has a feature extractor and a classifier head.
The feature extractor is a pre-trained feature extractor model.
The feature extractors we used include VGG11 \cite{simonyan_very_2014}, EfficientNet \cite{tan_efficientnet_2020}, Squeezenet \cite{iandola_squeezenet_2016}, and DinoV2 \cite{oquab_dinov2_2023}.
The features are then passed through a classifier head, which, in our case, was a single or a double-layered perceptron.
The output of the classifier is the score for each image.
We use Binary Cross Entropy, Ranking loss, and Mean Squared Error as the penalty while training the classifier.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height =0.15\textheight]{images/per_usr_and_top3.pdf}
\caption{Sorted Per User Accuracy over i) all Criteria, ii) Top 3 Criteria - Opperessing, Vegetated/Green, Refreshing (in the descending order of accuracy).}
\label{reg_res}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height =0.15\textheight]{images/top-5criteria_acc.pdf}
\caption{Sorted Per User Accuracy over i) All Criteria, ii) only 5 Criteria with highest overall accuracies (viz. Intimate, Regenerative, Refreshing, Vegetated/Green, Oppressing). }
\label{top_5_criteria_res}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.30\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height =0.15\textheight]{images/criteria_acc.pdf}
\caption{Scatter Plot of accuracies for every criterion. The highest accuracy is for the criterion 'Opperessing', and the lowest accuracy is for the criterion 'Inviting/Welcoming'.}
\label{criteria_res}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Experiment results}
\label{fig_results}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Equity Metrics}
To define equity for a learning-to-rank problem with respect to the participants' domain, we can view the problem as a generative problem, where the participants contribute to generating the final ranking.
The inspiration has been drawn from current equal-opportunity fairness metrics and also the Gini coefficient \cite{do_optimizing_2022}, which is widely used in economics to measure the inequity in wealth distribution in society.
\begin{itemize}
\item Maximal Per-User Accuracy:
\begin{equation}
Acc_{\max} =
\max_{i,j}(Acc_i - Acc_j)
\end{equation}
Here, $Acc_i$ and ${Acc}_{j}$ are the accuracies with respect to the i’th and j’th users.
This metric aims to calculate the maximum difference in the per-user accuracy of two users.
The higher the maximal per-user accuracy, the more the model has been biased towards one user than the other and hence, the user with the minimum per-user accuracy has not been given equal opportunity to affect the final ranking.
\item Standard Deviation of Per-User Accuracy:
\begin{equation}
Acc_{std}= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i}{(Acc_i-\bar{Acc})}}{N}}
\end{equation}
Here, $Acc_i$ is the accuracy with respect to the i’th user, $\bar{Acc} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} Acc_i$ is the average per-user Accuracy, and N is the number of participants.
The metric aims to calculate the deviation with respect to all the per-user accuracies.
A large standard deviation will imply an unequal distribution of per-user accuracies, which will imply that users are not being provided with equal opportunity to affect the rankings.
\item Gini Coefficient over Per-User Accuracy:
The ratio of the area underneath the Line of Equality (all the users having the same per-user accuracy) and the area underneath the Lorenz Curve (given by the cumulative per-user accuracy).
According to the classical definition of the Gini Coefficient with respect to the relative mean difference:
\begin{equation}
Gini = \frac{\sum_{i, j}{(|Acc_{i} - Acc_{j}|)}}{2 N^2 \bar{Acc}}
\end{equation}
Here, $Acc_i$ is the accuracy with respect to the i’th user, $\bar{Acc} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} Acc_i$ is the average per-user Accuracy, and N is the number of participants.
The metric aims to calculate the inequality in the model's prediction. Hence, defining Gini inequality over the per-user accuracy helps us define the inequity in the model.
% Formalise the definition.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Results}
We have considered the Learning-To-Rank task on the Streetview Image Dataset as a Regression Problem, where the model outputs scores for both the images in the comparison and is trained to match the difference in the predicted score to the score provided by the participant for the particular comparison.
The value for the metrics for the regression problem type can be seen in Figure \cref{reg_res}.
Additionally, the inequity seems to be higher in the case of criteria where the model seems to perform the best overall, as seen in \cref{top_5_criteria_res} and \cref{criteria_res}.
Here, the inequity seems to be brought about majorly by the voting patterns as the mean squared error (MSE) used to train the model penalises the model for every minute discrepancy with the users’ comparisons.
The users with voting patterns with the majority of votes clustered around 0 (a conservative voting approach) tend to have more accuracy, as is expected for the best-fit model enforced by the MSE loss.
However, given a different model, this learned voting pattern can differ.
Also, the number of comparisons still affects the inequity, but it is difficult to disentangle its effects and differentiate the minor trend from the major trend of inequity by voting patterns.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{concl}
In conclusion, our study introduces a novel dataset aimed at assessing the quality of public spaces using street-view images. This dataset is the product of a methodology integrating co-design and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles, ensuring representation of diverse perspectives. We trained a baseline model on this dataset and assessed its fairness in capturing a broad spectrum of viewpoints. However, our analysis revealed significant challenges. The model's performance varied considerably across different evaluation criteria, with some criteria showing performance close to random, underscoring the complexity of the task. Moreover, we observed substantial variability in model performance across different users, indicating an inability to accurately capture preferences from diverse user groups. While these initial findings are promising, they also underscore the need for further research to develop models capable of effectively capturing and representing a diversity of viewpoints. We have tried some plausible solutions to attenuate the aforementioned problems and report their findings in \cref{apndx:sols}. Addressing these challenges is crucial for advancing the development of responsible AI models and datasets in the realm of public space evaluation.
\onecolumn
\section{Participants}
\label{app:participants}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/ai-edi-space-diversity-markers.pdf}
\caption{The identity markers of the participants.}
\label{fig:participants}
\end{figure}
\section {Evaluation Criteria}
\label{app:criteria}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/Criteria.pdf}
\caption{Criteria used for evaluating the streetview images of public spaces. }
\label{fig:criteria}
\end{figure}
\section {Annotation User Interface}
\label{app:software}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/annotation_platform.png}
\caption{Screenshot of the user interface used for gathering the annotations.}
\label{fig:software}
\end{figure}
\section{Additional Results}
\label{apndx:sols}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Name of Experiment & Accuracy & Min-Max Gap & Standard Deviation \\
\midrule
Baseline & 47.97\% & 7.43\% & 2.01\% \\
Normalisation scaling & 48.82\% & 14.65\% & 2.62\% \\
User Embeddings & 49.67\% & 5.47\% & 1.43\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of our metrics over different plausible solutions}
\label{sol_results}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\section{Experimentation Details}
We have implemented all experiments in this work using PyTorch Lightning.
The model with the best performance uses an EfficientNet feature extractor, pre-trained on ImageNet, and with weights available from the TorchVision package.
It also has a two-layered classifier with 256 hidden dimensions.
For training, we have randomly split the dataset in an 80-20 split for training and validation.
To obtain the optimal model, whose results we have presented in this work, we ran a grid search over the hyperparameters to identify the optimal set of hyperparameters.
We trained the Baseline model over 150 epochs when the training batch size was 32.
The losses used while training the optimal model are the Least Squared Error Loss and the Ranking loss, as explained in the main text.
We used the ADAM optimizer with an initial Learning Rate of 0.01, which was reduced iteratively if the model's performance did not change over 8 steps using a Scheduler.
Finally, we used early stopping to stop the model from overfitting and have stated the results with the model which attained the best performance while training.
Additionally, to alleviate the effects of stochasticity, we have replicated the training with the optimal hyperparameters five times, with different initial seeds.
We have trained all models on 2 Nvidia V100SMX2 GPUs, from the Beluga Computer Cluster at ETS, Montréal, with access supported through the "Digital Research Alliance of Canada (the Alliance)".
\begin{thebibliography}{17}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[Achiam et~al.(2023)Achiam, Adler, Agarwal, Ahmad, Akkaya, Aleman, Almeida, Altenschmidt, Altman, Anadkat, et~al.]{achiam2023gpt}
Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia~Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et~al.
\newblock Gpt-4 technical report.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774}, 2023.
\bibitem[Allouah et~al.()Allouah, Guerraoui, Hoang, and Villemaud]{allouah_robust_2022}
Youssef Allouah, R. Guerraoui, L. Hoang, and Oscar Villemaud.
\newblock Robust sparse voting.
\bibitem[Arrow()]{arrow_difficulty_1950}
Kenneth~J. Arrow.
\newblock A difficulty in the concept of social welfare.
\newblock 58\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 328--346.
\bibitem[Asaro(2000)]{asaro2000transforming}
Peter~M Asaro.
\newblock Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design.
\newblock \emph{Accounting, Management and Information Technologies}, 10\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 257--290, 2000.
\bibitem[Davani et~al.(2022)Davani, D{\'\i}az, and Prabhakaran]{davani2022dealing}
Aida~Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark D{\'\i}az, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran.
\newblock Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations.
\newblock \emph{Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics}, 10:\penalty0 92--110, 2022.
\bibitem[de~Hond et~al.(2022)de~Hond, van Buchem, and Hernandez-Boussard]{de2022picture}
Anne~AH de Hond, Marieke~M van Buchem, and Tina Hernandez-Boussard.
\newblock Picture a data scientist: a call to action for increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the age of ai.
\newblock \emph{Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association}, 29\penalty0 (12):\penalty0 2178--2181, 2022.
\bibitem[Do and Usunier()]{do_optimizing_2022}
Virginie Do and Nicolas Usunier.
\newblock Optimizing generalized gini indices for fairness in rankings.
\bibitem[Dubey et~al.()Dubey, Naik, Parikh, Raskar, and Hidalgo]{dubey_deep_2016}
Abhimanyu Dubey, Nikhil Naik, Devi Parikh, Ramesh Raskar, and César~A. Hidalgo.
\newblock Deep learning the city: Quantifying urban perception at a global scale.
\newblock In \emph{Computer Vision – {ECCV} 2016}, pages 196--212. Springer International Publishing.
\bibitem[Enos(2017)]{enos2017space}
Ryan~D Enos.
\newblock \emph{The space between us: Social geography and politics}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 2017.
\bibitem[Gray and Suri(2019)]{gray2019ghost}
Mary~L Gray and Siddharth Suri.
\newblock \emph{Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass}.
\newblock Eamon Dolan Books, 2019.
\bibitem[Iandola et~al.()Iandola, Han, Moskewicz, Ashraf, Dally, and Keutzer]{iandola_squeezenet_2016}
Forrest~N. Iandola, Song Han, Matthew~W. Moskewicz, Khalid Ashraf, William~J. Dally, and Kurt Keutzer.
\newblock {SqueezeNet}: {AlexNet}-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and \<0.5mb model size.
\bibitem[{Jeff Larson} et~al.(){Jeff Larson}, {Surya Mattu}, {Lauren Kirchner}, and {Julia Angwin}]{jeff_larson_how_nodate}
{Jeff Larson}, {Surya Mattu}, {Lauren Kirchner}, and {Julia Angwin}.
\newblock How we analyzed the {COMPAS} recidivism algorithm.
\bibitem[Lussault(2009)]{lussault2009lutte}
Michel Lussault.
\newblock \emph{De la lutte des classes {\`a} la lutte des places}.
\newblock Grasset Paris, 2009.
\bibitem[Oquab et~al.()Oquab, Darcet, Moutakanni, Vo, Szafraniec, Khalidov, Fernandez, Haziza, Massa, El-Nouby, Assran, Ballas, Galuba, Howes, Huang, Li, Misra, Rabbat, Sharma, Synnaeve, Xu, Jegou, Mairal, Labatut, Joulin, and Bojanowski]{oquab_dinov2_2023}
Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mahmoud Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michael Rabbat, Vasu Sharma, Gabriel Synnaeve, Hu Xu, Hervé Jegou, Julien Mairal, Patrick Labatut, Armand Joulin, and Piotr Bojanowski.
\newblock {DINOv}2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.
\bibitem[Perrigo(2023)]{perrigo2023openai}
Billy Perrigo.
\newblock Openai used kenyan workers on less than \$2 per hour to make chatgpt less toxic.
\newblock \emph{Time Magazine}, 2023.
\bibitem[Simonyan and Zisserman()]{simonyan_very_2014}
Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman.
\newblock Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition.
\bibitem[Tan and Le()]{tan_efficientnet_2020}
Mingxing Tan and Quoc~V. Le.
\newblock {EfficientNet}: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks.
\end{thebibliography}