An official website of the United States government
This survey article assesses and compares existing critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions in machine learning (ML) that draw from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies. It bridges epistemic divides in order to offer an interdisciplinary understanding of the possibilities and limits of hegemonic computational approaches to ML fairness for producing just outcomes for society’s most marginalized. The article is organized according to nine major themes of critique wherein these different fields intersect: 1) how "fairness" in AI fairness research gets defined; 2) how problems for AI systems to address get formulated; 3) the impacts of abstraction on how AI tools function and its propensity to lead to technological solutionism; 4) how racial classification operates within AI fairness research; 5) the use of AI fairness measures to avoid regulation and engage in ethics washing; 6) an absence of participatory design and democratic deliberation in AI fairness considerations; 7) data collection practices that entrench “bias,” are non-consensual, and lack transparency; 8) the predatory inclusion of marginalized groups into AI systems; and 9) a lack of engagement with AI’s long-term social and ethical outcomes. Drawing from these critiques, the article concludes by imagining future ML fairness research directions that actively disrupt entrenched power dynamics and structural injustices in society.
more »
« less
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
A key goal of the fair-ML community is to develop machine-learning based systems that, once introduced into a social context, can achieve social and legal outcomes such as fairness, justice, and due process. Bedrock concepts in computer science---such as abstraction and modular design---are used to define notions of fairness and discrimination, to produce fairness-aware learning algorithms, and to intervene at different stages of a decision-making pipeline to produce "fair" outcomes. In this paper, however, we contend that these concepts render technical interventions ineffective, inaccurate, and sometimes dangerously misguided when they enter the societal context that surrounds decision-making systems. We outline this mismatch with five "traps" that fair-ML work can fall into even as it attempts to be more context-aware in comparison to traditional data science. We draw on studies of sociotechnical systems in Science and Technology Studies to explain why such traps occur and how to avoid them. Finally, we suggest ways in which technical designers can mitigate the traps through a refocusing of design in terms of process rather than solutions, and by drawing abstraction boundaries to include social actors rather than purely technical ones.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10121131
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 59 to 68
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Achieving fairness in sequential decision making systems within Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) environments is a critical concern, especially when multiple humans with different behavior and expectations are affected by the same adaptation decisions in the system. This human variability factor adds more complexity since policies deemed fair at one point in time may become discriminatory over time due to variations in human preferences resulting from inter- and intra-human variability. This paper addresses the fairness problem from an equity lens, considering human behavior variability, and the changes in human preferences over time. We propose FAIRO, a novel algorithm for fairness-aware sequential decision making in HITL adaptation, which incorporates these notions into the decision-making process. In particular, FAIRO decomposes this complex fairness task into adaptive sub-tasks based on individual human preferences through leveraging the Options reinforcement learning framework. We design FAIRO to generalize to three types of HITL application setups that have the shared adaptation decision problem. Furthermore, we recognize that fairness-aware policies can sometimes conflict with the application’s utility. To address this challenge, we provide a fairness-utility tradeoff in FAIRO, allowing system designers to balance the objectives of fairness and utility based on specific application requirements. Extensive evaluations of FAIRO on the three HITL applications demonstrate its generalizability and effectiveness in promoting fairness while accounting for human variability. On average, FAIRO can improve fairness compared with other methods across all three applications by 35.36%.more » « less
-
Roth, A (Ed.)It is well understood that classification algorithms, for example, for deciding on loan applications, cannot be evaluated for fairness without taking context into account. We examine what can be learned from a fairness oracle equipped with an underlying understanding of “true” fairness. The oracle takes as input a (context, classifier) pair satisfying an arbitrary fairness definition, and accepts or rejects the pair according to whether the classifier satisfies the underlying fairness truth. Our principal conceptual result is an extraction procedure that learns the underlying truth; moreover, the procedure can learn an approximation to this truth given access to a weak form of the oracle. Since every “truly fair” classifier induces a coarse metric, in which those receiving the same decision are at distance zero from one another and those receiving different decisions are at distance one, this extraction process provides the basis for ensuring a rough form of metric fairness, also known as individual fairness. Our principal technical result is a higher fidelity extractor under a mild technical constraint on the weak oracle’s conception of fairness. Our framework permits the scenario in which many classifiers, with differing outcomes, may all be considered fair. Our results have implications for interpretablity – a highly desired but poorly defined property of classification systems that endeavors to permit a human arbiter to reject classifiers deemed to be“unfair” or illegitimately derived.more » « less
-
Fairness is one of the most desirable societal principles in collective decision-making. It has been extensively studied in the past decades for its axiomatic properties and has received substantial attention from the multiagent systems community in recent years for its theoretical and computational aspects in algorithmic decision-making. However, these studies are often not sufficiently rich to capture the intricacies of human perception of fairness in the ambivalent nature of the real-world problems. We argue that not only fair solutions should be deemed desirable by social planners (designers), but they should be governed by human and societal cognition, consider perceived outcomes based on human judgement, and be verifiable. We discuss how achieving this goal requires a broad transdisciplinary approach ranging from computing and AI to behavioral economics and human-AI interaction. In doing so, we identify shortcomings and long-term challenges of the current literature of fair division, describe recent efforts in addressing them, and more importantly, highlight a series of open research directions.more » « less
-
Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly used throughout the public and private sectors to make important decisions or assist humans in making these decisions with real social consequences. While there has been substantial research in recent years to build fair decision-making algorithms, there has been less research seeking to understand the factors that affect people's perceptions of fairness in these systems, which we argue is also important for their broader acceptance. In this research, we conduct an online experiment to better understand perceptions of fairness, focusing on three sets of factors: algorithm outcomes, algorithm development and deployment procedures, and individual differences. We find that people rate the algorithm as more fair when the algorithm predicts in their favor, even surpassing the negative effects of describing algorithms that are very biased against particular demographic groups. We find that this effect is moderated by several variables, including participants' education level, gender, and several aspects of the development procedure. Our findings suggest that systems that evaluate algorithmic fairness through users' feedback must consider the possibility of "outcome favorability" bias.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
