اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدFairness as Equality of Opportunity: Normative Guidance from Political Philosophy
71
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Recent interest in codifying fairness in Automated Decision Systems (ADS) has resulted in a wide range of formulations of what it means for an algorithmic system to be fair. Most of these propositions are inspired by, but inadequately grounded in, political philosophy scholarship. This paper aims to correct that deficit. We introduce a taxonomy of fairness ideals using doctrines of Equality of Opportunity (EOP) from political philosophy, clarifying their conceptions in philosophy and the proposed codification in fair machine learning. We arrange these fairness ideals onto an EOP spectrum, which serves as a useful frame to guide the design of a fair ADS in a given context. We use our fairness-as-EOP framework to re-interpret the impossibility results from a philosophical perspective, as the in-compatibility between different value systems, and demonstrate the utility of the framework with several real-world and hypothetical examples. Through our EOP-framework we hope to answer what it means for an ADS to be fair from a moral and political philosophy standpoint, and to pave the way for similar scholarship from ethics and legal experts.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Fair machine learning is receiving an increasing attention in machine learning fields. Researchers in fair learning have developed correlation or association-based measures such as demographic disparity, mistreatment disparity, calibration, causal-ba
sed measures such as total effect, direct and indirect discrimination, and counterfactual fairness, and fairness notions such as equality of opportunity and equal odds that consider both decisions in the training data and decisions made by predictive models. In this paper, we develop a new causal-based fairness notation, called equality of effort. Different from existing fairness notions which mainly focus on discovering the disparity of decisions between two groups of individuals, the proposed equality of effort notation helps answer questions like to what extend a legitimate variable should change to make a particular individual achieve a certain outcome level and addresses the concerns whether the efforts made to achieve the same outcome level for individuals from the protected group and that from the unprotected group are different. We develop algorithms for determining whether an individual or a group of individuals is discriminated in terms of equality of effort. We also develop an optimization-based method for removing discriminatory effects from the data if discrimination is detected. We conduct empirical evaluations to compare the equality of effort and existing fairness notion and show the effectiveness of our proposed algorithms.
Advances in algorithmic fairness have largely omitted sexual orientation and gender identity. We explore queer concerns in privacy, censorship, language, online safety, health, and employment to study the positive and negative effects of artificial i
ntelligence on queer communities. These issues underscore the need for new directions in fairness research that take into account a multiplicity of considerations, from privacy preservation, context sensitivity and process fairness, to an awareness of sociotechnical impact and the increasingly important role of inclusive and participatory research processes. Most current approaches for algorithmic fairness assume that the target characteristics for fairness--frequently, race and legal gender--can be observed or recorded. Sexual orientation and gender identity are prototypical instances of unobserved characteristics, which are frequently missing, unknown or fundamentally unmeasurable. This paper highlights the importance of developing new approaches for algorithmic fairness that break away from the prevailing assumption of observed characteristics.
Society increasingly relies on machine learning models for automated decision making. Yet, efficiency gains from automation have come paired with concern for algorithmic discrimination that can systematize inequality. Recent work has proposed optimal
post-processing methods that randomize classification decisions for a fraction of individuals, in order to achieve fairness measures related to parity in errors and calibration. These methods, however, have raised concern due to the information inefficiency, intra-group unfairness, and Pareto sub-optimality they entail. The present work proposes an alternative active framework for fair classification, where, in deployment, a decision-maker adaptively acquires information according to the needs of different groups or individuals, towards balancing disparities in classification performance. We propose two such methods, where information collection is adapted to group- and individual-level needs respectively. We show on real-world datasets that these can achieve: 1) calibration and single error parity (e.g., equal opportunity); and 2) parity in both false positive and false negative rates (i.e., equal odds). Moreover, we show that by leveraging their additional degree of freedom, active approaches can substantially outperform randomization-based classifiers previously considered optimal, while avoiding limitations such as intra-group unfairness.
In a legal system, judgment consistency is regarded as one of the most important manifestations of fairness. However, due to the complexity of factual elements that impact sentencing in real-world scenarios, few works have been done on quantitatively
measuring judgment consistency towards real-world data. In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo), which aims to evaluate inconsistency between data groups divided by specific features (e.g., gender, region, race). We propose to simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. Experimental results on the synthetic data verify the effectiveness of LInCo. We further employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency; (2) The level of regional inconsistency varies little across different time periods; (3) In general, judicial inconsistency is negatively correlated with the severity of the criminal charges. Besides, we use LInCo to evaluate the performance of several de-bias methods, such as adversarial learning, and find that these mechanisms can effectively help LJP models to avoid suffering from data bias.
Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, such as medicine, hiring, and criminal justice. In response, computer scientists have developed myriad definitions of fairness to correct this bias in fielded algorithms. While some
definitions are based on established legal and ethical norms, others are largely mathematical. It is unclear whether the general public agrees with these fairness definitions, and perhaps more importantly, whether they understand these definitions. We take initial steps toward bridging this gap between ML researchers and the public, by addressing the question: does a lay audience understand a basic definition of ML fairness? We develop a metric to measure comprehension of three such definitions--demographic parity, equal opportunity, and equalized odds. We evaluate this metric using an online survey, and investigate the relationship between comprehension and sentiment, demographics, and the definition itself.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
