4,554 research outputs found
Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction
As algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect
human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of
criminal recidivism, concerns have been raised about the fairness of
algorithmic decision making. Most prior works on algorithmic fairness
normatively prescribe how fair decisions ought to be made. In contrast, here,
we descriptively survey users for how they perceive and reason about fairness
in algorithmic decision making.
A key contribution of this work is the framework we propose to understand why
people perceive certain features as fair or unfair to be used in algorithms.
Our framework identifies eight properties of features, such as relevance,
volitionality and reliability, as latent considerations that inform people's
moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making
algorithms. We validate our framework through a series of scenario-based
surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person's assessment of the
eight latent properties of a feature in our exemplar scenario, we can
accurately (> 85%) predict if the person will judge the use of the feature as
fair.
Our findings have important implications. At a high-level, we show that
people's unfairness concerns are multi-dimensional and argue that future
studies need to address unfairness concerns beyond discrimination. At a
low-level, we find considerable disagreements in people's fairness judgments.
We identify root causes of the disagreements, and note possible pathways to
resolve them.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the Web Conference (WWW 2018). Code
available at https://fate-computing.mpi-sws.org/procedural_fairness
The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning
The nascent field of fair machine learning aims to ensure that decisions
guided by algorithms are equitable. Over the last several years, three formal
definitions of fairness have gained prominence: (1) anti-classification,
meaning that protected attributes---like race, gender, and their proxies---are
not explicitly used to make decisions; (2) classification parity, meaning that
common measures of predictive performance (e.g., false positive and false
negative rates) are equal across groups defined by the protected attributes;
and (3) calibration, meaning that conditional on risk estimates, outcomes are
independent of protected attributes. Here we show that all three of these
fairness definitions suffer from significant statistical limitations. Requiring
anti-classification or classification parity can, perversely, harm the very
groups they were designed to protect; and calibration, though generally
desirable, provides little guarantee that decisions are equitable. In contrast
to these formal fairness criteria, we argue that it is often preferable to
treat similarly risky people similarly, based on the most statistically
accurate estimates of risk that one can produce. Such a strategy, while not
universally applicable, often aligns well with policy objectives; notably, this
strategy will typically violate both anti-classification and classification
parity. In practice, it requires significant effort to construct suitable risk
estimates. One must carefully define and measure the targets of prediction to
avoid retrenching biases in the data. But, importantly, one cannot generally
address these difficulties by requiring that algorithms satisfy popular
mathematical formalizations of fairness. By highlighting these challenges in
the foundation of fair machine learning, we hope to help researchers and
practitioners productively advance the area
Fair Inputs and Fair Outputs: The Incompatibility of Fairness in Privacy and Accuracy
Fairness concerns about algorithmic decision-making systems have been mainly
focused on the outputs (e.g., the accuracy of a classifier across individuals
or groups). However, one may additionally be concerned with fairness in the
inputs. In this paper, we propose and formulate two properties regarding the
inputs of (features used by) a classifier. In particular, we claim that fair
privacy (whether individuals are all asked to reveal the same information) and
need-to-know (whether users are only asked for the minimal information required
for the task at hand) are desirable properties of a decision system. We explore
the interaction between these properties and fairness in the outputs (fair
prediction accuracy). We show that for an optimal classifier these three
properties are in general incompatible, and we explain what common properties
of data make them incompatible. Finally we provide an algorithm to verify if
the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset, and use
the algorithm to show that this trade-off is common in real data
Bridging the Gap: Towards an Expanded Toolkit for ML-Supported Decision-Making in the Public Sector
Machine Learning (ML) systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector,
with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare,
financial fraud detection, and public health. While these systems offer great
potential benefits to institutional decision-making processes, such as improved
efficiency and reliability, they still face the challenge of aligning intricate
and nuanced policy objectives with the precise formalization requirements
necessitated by ML models. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap between ML
and public sector decision-making by presenting a comprehensive overview of key
technical challenges where disjunctions between policy goals and ML models
commonly arise. We concentrate on pivotal points of the ML pipeline that
connect the model to its operational environment, delving into the significance
of representative training data and highlighting the importance of a model
setup that facilitates effective decision-making. Additionally, we link these
challenges with emerging methodological advancements, encompassing causal ML,
domain adaptation, uncertainty quantification, and multi-objective
optimization, illustrating the path forward for harmonizing ML and public
sector objectives
- …