An official website of the United States government
In this work we use Equal Opportunity (EO) doctrines from political philosophy to make explicit the normative judgements embedded in different conceptions of algorithmic fairness. We contrast formal EO approaches that narrowly focus on fair contests at discrete decision points, with substantive EO doctrines that look at people’s fair life chances more holistically over the course of a lifetime. We use this taxonomy to provide a moral interpretation of the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different conceptions of a fair contest — foward-facing versus backward-facing — when people do not have fair life chances. We use this result to motivate substantive conceptions of algorithmic fairness and outline two plausible fair decision procedures based on the luck egalitarian doctrine of EO, and Rawls’s principle of fair equality of opportunity.
more »
« less
Fairness and Friends
Recent interest in codifying fairness in Automated Decision Systems (ADS) has resulted in a wide range of formulations of what it means for an algorithm to be “fair.” Most of these propositions are inspired by, but inadequately grounded in, scholarship from political philosophy. This comic aims to correct that deficit. We begin by setting up a working definition of an 'Automated Decision System' (ADS) and explaining 'bias' in outputs of an ADS. We then critically evaluate different definitions of fairness as Equality of Opportunity (EOP) by contrasting their conception in political philosophy (such as Rawls’s fair EOP and formal EOP) with the proposed codification in Fair-ML (such as statistical parity, equality of odds and accuracy) to provide a clearer lens with which to view existing results and to identify future research directions. We use this framing to reinterpret the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different EOP doctrines and demonstrate how political philosophy can provide normative guidance as to which notion of fairness is applicable in which context. We conclude by highlighting justice considerations that the fair-ML literature currently overlooks or underemphasizes, such as Rawls's broader theory of justice, which supplements his EOP principle with a principle guaranteeing equal rights and liberties to all citizens in a free and democratic society.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10398898
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Beyond static papers: Rethinking how we share scientific understanding in ML - ICLR 2021 workshop
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Recent works extend classification group fairness measures to sequential decision processes such as reinforcement learning (RL) by measuring fairness as the difference in decisionmaker utility (e.g. accuracy) of each group. This approach suffers when decision-maker utility is not perfectly aligned with group utility, such as in repeat loan applications where a false positive (loan default) impacts the groups (applicants) and decision-maker (lender) by different magnitudes. Some works remedy this by measuring fairness in terms of group utility, typically referred to as their "qualification", but few works offer solutions that yield group qualification equality. Those that do are prone to violating the "no-harm" principle where one or more groups’ qualifications are lowered in order to achieve equality. In this work, we characterize this problem space as having three implicit objectives: maximizing decision-maker utility, maximizing group qualification, and minimizing the difference in qualification between groups. We provide a RL policy learning technique that optimizes for these objectives directly by constructing a multi-objective reward function that encodes these objectives as distinct reward signals. Under suitable parameterizations our approach is guaranteed to respect the "no-harm" principle.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Machine Learning has become a popular tool in a variety of applications in criminal justice, including sentencing and policing. Media has brought attention to the possibility of predictive policing systems causing disparate impacts and exacerbating social injustices. However, there is little academic research on the importance of fairness in machine learning applications in policing. Although prior research has shown that machine learning models can handle some tasks efficiently, they are susceptible to replicating systemic bias of previous human decision-makers. While there is much research on fair machine learning in general, there is a need to investigate fair machine learning techniques as they pertain to the predictive policing. Therefore, we evaluate the existing publications in the field of fairness in machine learning and predictive policing to arrive at a set of standards for fair predictive policing. We also review the evaluations of ML applications in the area of criminal justice and potential techniques to improve these technologies going forward. We urge that the growing literature on fairness in ML be brought into conversation with the legal and social science concerns being raised about predictive policing. Lastly, in any area, including predictive policing, the pros and cons of the technology need to be evaluated holistically to determine whether and how the technology should be used in policing.more » « less
-
Over the past several years, multiple different methods to measure the causal fairness of machine learning models have been proposed. However, despite the growing number of publications and implementations, there is still a critical lack of literature that explains the interplay of causality-based fairness notions with the social sciences of philosophy, sociology, and law. We hope to remedy this issue by accumulating and expounding upon the thoughts and discussions of causality-based fairness notions produced by both social and formal (specifically machine learning) sciences in this field guide. In addition to giving the mathematical backgrounds of several popular causality-based fair machine learning notions, we explain their connection to and interplay with the fields of philosophy and law. Further, we explore several criticisms of the current approaches to causality-based fair machine learning from a sociological viewpoint as well as from a technical standpoint. It is our hope that this field guide will help fair machine learning practitioners better understand how their causality-based fairness notions align with important humanistic values (such as fairness) and how we can, as a field, design methods and metrics to better serve oppressed and marginalized populaces.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
