With the increasing prevalence of automatic decision-making systems, concerns regarding the fairness of these systems also arise. Without a universally agreed-upon definition of fairness, given an automated decision-making scenario, researchers often adopt a crowdsourced approach to solicit people’s preferences across multiple fairness definitions. However, it is often found that crowdsourced fairness preferences are highly context-dependent, making it intriguing to explore the driving factors behind these preferences. One plausible hypothesis is that people’s fairness preferences reflect
their perceived risk levels for different decision-making mistakes, such that the fairness definition that equalizes across groups the type of mistakes that are perceived as most serious will be preferred. To test this conjecture, we conduct a human-subject study (𝑁 =213) to study people’s fairness perceptions in three societal contexts. In particular, these three societal contexts differ on the expected level of risk associated with different types of decision mistakes, and we elicit both people’s fairness preferences and risk perceptions for each context. Our results show that people can often distinguish between different levels of decision risks across different societal contexts. However, we find that people’s fairness preferences do not vary significantly across the three selected societal contexts, except for within a certain subgroup of people (e.g., people with a certain racial background). As such, we observe minimal evidence suggesting that people’s risk perceptions of decision mistakes correlate with their fairness preference. These results highlight that fairness preferences are highly subjective and nuanced, and they might be primarily affected by factors other than the perceived risks of decision mistakes.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 3, 2025
Balancing Act: Evaluating People’s Perceptions of Fair Ranking Metrics
Algorithmic decision-making using rankings— prevalent in areas from hiring and bail to university admissions— raises concerns of potential bias. In this paper, we explore the alignment between people’s perceptions of fairness and two popular fairness metrics designed for rankings. In a crowdsourced experiment with 480 participants, people rated the perceived fairness of a hypothetical scholarship distribution scenario. Results suggest a strong inclination towards relying on explicit score values. There is also evidence of people’s preference for one fairness metric, NDKL, over the other metric, ARP. Qualitative results paint a more complex picture: some participants endorse meritocratic award schemes and express concerns about fairness metrics being used to modify rankings; while other participants acknowledge socio-economic factors in score-based rankings as justification for adjusting rankings. In summary, we find that operationalizing algorithmic fairness in practice is a balancing act between mitigating harms towards marginalized groups and societal conventions of leveraging traditional performance scores such as grades in decision-making contexts.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2007932
- PAR ID:
- 10530936
- Publisher / Repository:
- Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Date Published:
- ISBN:
- 9798400704505
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1940 to 1970
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Algorithmic Fairness Human Perception of Fairness
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
As algorithmic decision making is increasingly deployed in every walk of life, many researchers have raised concerns about fairness-related bias from such algorithms. But there is little research on harnessing psychometric methods to uncover potential discriminatory bias inside decision-making algorithms. The main goal of this article is to propose a new framework for algorithmic fairness based on differential item functioning (DIF), which has been commonly used to measure item fairness in psychometrics. Our fairness notion, which we call differential algorithmic functioning (DAF), is defined based on three pieces of information: a decision variable, a “fair” variable, and a protected variable such as race or gender. Under the DAF framework, an algorithm can exhibit uniform DAF, nonuniform DAF, or neither (i.e., non-DAF). For detecting DAF, we provide modifications of well-established DIF methods: Mantel–Haenszel test, logistic regression, and residual-based DIF. We demonstrate our framework through a real dataset concerning decision-making algorithms for grade retention in K–12 education in the United States.
-
Algorithmic decisions often result in scoring and ranking individuals to determine credit worthiness, qualifications for college admissions and employment, and compatibility as dating partners. While automatic and seemingly objective, ranking algorithms can discriminate against individuals and protected groups, and exhibit low diversity. Furthermore, ranked results are often unstable -- small changes in the input data or in the ranking methodology may lead to drastic changes in the output, making the result uninformative and easy to manipulate. Similar concerns apply in cases where items other than individuals are ranked, including colleges, academic departments, or products. Despite the ubiquity of rankers, there is, to the best of our knowledge, no technical work that focuses on making rankers transparent. In this demonstration we present Ranking Facts, a Web-based application that generates a "nutritional label" for rankings. Ranking Facts is made up of a collection of visual widgets that implement our latest research results on fairness, stability, and transparency for rankings, and that communicate details of the ranking methodology, or of the output, to the end user. We will showcase Ranking Facts on real datasets from different domains, including college rankings, criminal risk assessment, and financial services.more » « less
-
For applications where multiple stakeholders provide recommendations, a fair consensus ranking must not only ensure that the preferences of rankers are well represented, but must also mitigate disadvantages among socio-demographic groups in the final result. However, there is little empirical guidance on the value or challenges of visualizing and integrating fairness metrics and algorithms into human-in-the-loop systems to aid decision-makers. In this work, we design a study to analyze the effectiveness of integrating such fairness metrics-based visualization and algorithms. We explore this through a task-based crowdsourced experiment comparing an interactive visualization system for constructing consensus rankings, ConsensusFuse, with a similar system that includes visual encodings of fairness metrics and fair-rank generation algorithms, FairFuse. We analyze the measure of fairness, agreement of rankers’ decisions, and user interactions in constructing the fair consensus ranking across these two systems. In our study with 200 participants, results suggest that providing these fairness-oriented support features nudges users to align their decision with the fairness metrics while minimizing the tedious process of manually having to amend the consensus ranking. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of next-generation fairness oriented-systems and along with emerging directions for future research.more » « less
-
Algorithmic fairness in the context of personalized recommendation presents significantly different challenges to those commonly encountered in classification tasks. Researchers studying classification have generally considered fairness to be a matter of achieving equality of outcomes (or some other metric) between a protected and unprotected group, and built algorithmic interventions on this basis. We argue that fairness in real-world application settings in general, and especially in the context of personalized recommendation, is much more complex and multi-faceted, requiring a more general approach. To address the fundamental problem of fairness in the presence of multiple stakeholders, with different definitions of fairness, we propose the Social Choice for Recommendation Under Fairness – Dynamic (SCRUF-D) architecture, which formalizes multistakeholder fairness in recommender systems as a two-stage social choice problem. In particular, we express recommendation fairness as a combination of an allocation and an aggregation problem, which integrate both fairness concerns and personalized recommendation provisions, and derive new recommendation techniques based on this formulation. We demonstrate the ability of our framework to dynamically incorporate multiple fairness concerns using both real-world and synthetic datasets.more » « less
