Individual Fairness in Hindsight

Since many critical decisions impacting human lives are increasingly being made by algorithms, it is important to ensure that the treatment of individuals under such algorithms is demonstrably fair under reasonable notions of fairness. One compelling notion proposed in the literature is that of individual fairness (IF), which advocates that similar individuals should be treated similarly (Dwork et al. 2012). Originally proposed for offline decisions, this notion does not, however, account for temporal considerations relevant for online decision-making. In this paper, we extend the notion of IF to account for the time at which a decision is made, in settings where there exists a notion of conduciveness of decisions as perceived by the affected individuals. We introduce two definitions: (i) fairness-across-time (FT) and (ii) fairness-in-hindsight (FH). FT is the simplest temporal extension of IF where treatment of individuals is required to be individually fair relative to the past as well as future, while in FH, we require a one-sided notion of individual fairness that is defined relative to only the past decisions. We show that these two definitions can have drastically different implications in the setting where the principal needs to learn the utility model. Linear regret relative to optimal individually fair decisions is inevitable under FT for non-trivial examples. On the other hand, we design a new algorithm: Cautious Fair Exploration (CaFE), which satisfies FH and achieves sub-linear regret guarantees for a broad range of settings. We characterize lower bounds showing that these guarantees are order-optimal in the worst case. FH can thus be embedded as a primary safeguard against unfair discrimination in algorithmic deployments, without hindering the ability to take good decisions in the long-run

Designing Fair AI for Managing Employees in Organizations: A Review, Critique, and Design Agenda

Organizations are rapidly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to manage their workers. However, AI has been found at times to be unfair to workers. Unfairness toward workers has been associated with decreased worker effort and increased worker turnover. To avoid such problems, AI systems must be designed to support fairness and redress instances of unfairness. Despite the attention related to AI unfairness, there has not been a theoretical and systematic approach to developing a design agenda. This paper addresses the issue in three ways. First, we introduce the organizational justice theory, three different fairness types (distributive, procedural, interactional), and the frameworks for redressing instances of unfairness (retributive justice, restorative justice). Second, we review the design literature that specifically focuses on issues of AI fairness in organizations. Third, we propose a design agenda for AI fairness in organizations that applies each of the fairness types to organizational scenarios. Then, the paper concludes with implications for future research.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153812/4/AI Fairness Final to Online Feb 24 2020.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153812/1/AI Fairness Final to Online Feb 21 2020.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153812/6/Robert et al. 2020 AI Fairness New Proof.pdfDescription of AI Fairness Final to Online Feb 24 2020.pdf : Update Preprint Feb 24 2020Description of AI Fairness Final to Online Feb 21 2020.pdf : PreprintDescription of Robert et al. 2020 AI Fairness New Proof.pdf : Corrected Proof Mar 1 202

The Price of Local Fairness in Multistage Selection

International audienc

Trading-off price for data quality to achieve fair online allocation

We consider the problem of online allocation subject to a long-term fairness penalty. Contrary to existing works, however, we do not assume that the decision-maker observes the protected attributes -- which is often unrealistic in practice. Instead they can purchase data that help estimate them from sources of different quality; and hence reduce the fairness penalty at some cost. We model this problem as a multi-armed bandit problem where each arm corresponds to the choice of a data source, coupled with the online allocation problem. We propose an algorithm that jointly solves both problems and show that it has a regret bounded by $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$. A key difficulty is that the rewards received by selecting a source are correlated by the fairness penalty, which leads to a need for randomization (despite a stochastic setting). Our algorithm takes into account contextual information available before the source selection, and can adapt to many different fairness notions. We also show that in some instances, the estimates used can be learned on the fly

What-is and How-to for Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey, Reflection, and Perspective

Algorithmic fairness has attracted increasing attention in the machine learning community. Various definitions are proposed in the literature, but the differences and connections among them are not clearly addressed. In this paper, we review and reflect on various fairness notions previously proposed in machine learning literature, and make an attempt to draw connections to arguments in moral and political philosophy, especially theories of justice. We also consider fairness inquiries from a dynamic perspective, and further consider the long-term impact that is induced by current prediction and decision. In light of the differences in the characterized fairness, we present a flowchart that encompasses implicit assumptions and expected outcomes of different types of fairness inquiries on the data generating process, on the predicted outcome, and on the induced impact, respectively. This paper demonstrates the importance of matching the mission (which kind of fairness one would like to enforce) and the means (which spectrum of fairness analysis is of interest, what is the appropriate analyzing scheme) to fulfill the intended purpose