An official website of the United States government
AI systems have been known to amplify biases in real-world data. Explanations may help human-AI teams address these biases for fairer decision-making. Typically, explanations focus on salient input features. If a model is biased against some protected group, explanations may include features that demonstrate this bias, but when biases are realized through proxy features, the relationship between this proxy feature and the protected one may be less clear to a human. In this work, we study the effect of the presence of protected and proxy features on participants’ perception of model fairness and their ability to improve demographic parity over an AI alone. Further, we examine how different treatments—explanations, model bias disclosure and proxy correlation disclosure—affect fairness perception and parity. We find that explanations help people detect direct but not indirect biases. Additionally, regardless of bias type, explanations tend to increase agreement with model biases. Disclosures can help mitigate this effect for indirect biases, improving both unfairness recognition and decision-making fairness. We hope that our findings can help guide further research into advancing explanations in support of fair human-AI decision-making.
more »
« less
Assessing Group Fairness with Social Welfare Optimization
Statistical parity metrics have been widely studied and endorsed in the AI community as a means of achieving fairness, but they suffer from at least two weaknesses. They disregard the actual welfare consequences of decisions and may therefore fail to achieve the kind of fairness that is desired for disadvantaged groups. In addition, they are often incompatible with each other, and there is no convincing justification for selecting one rather than another. This paper explores whether a broader conception of social justice, based on optimizing a social welfare function (SWF), can be useful for assessing various definitions of parity. We focus on the well-known alpha fairness SWF, which has been defended by axiomatic and bargaining arguments over a period of 70 years. We analyze the optimal solution and show that it can justify demographic parity or equalized odds under certain conditions, but frequently requires a departure from these types of parity. In addition, we find that predictive rate parity is of limited usefulness. These results suggest that optimization theory can shed light on the intensely discussed question of how to achieve group fairness in AI.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2309668
- PAR ID:
- 10593131
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Nature Switzerland
- Date Published:
- ISSN:
- 0302-9743
- ISBN:
- 978-3-031-60596-3
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 208 to 225
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Price discrimination strategies, which offer different prices to customers based on differences in their valuations, have become common practice. Although it allows sellers to increase their profits, it also raises several concerns in terms of fairness (e.g., by charging higher prices (or denying access) to protected minorities in case they have higher (or lower) valuations than the general population). This topic has received extensive attention from media, industry, and regulatory agencies. In this paper, we consider the problem of setting prices for different groups under fairness constraints. We first propose four definitions: fairness in price, demand, consumer surplus, and no-purchase valuation. We prove that satisfying more than one of these fairness constraints is impossible even under simple settings. We then analyze the pricing strategy of a profit-maximizing seller and the impact of imposing fairness on the seller’s profit, consumer surplus, and social welfare. Under a linear demand model, we find that imposing a small amount of price fairness increases social welfare, whereas too much price fairness may result in a lower welfare relative to imposing no fairness. On the other hand, imposing fairness in demand or consumer surplus always decreases social welfare. Finally, no-purchase valuation fairness always increases social welfare. We observe similar patterns under several extensions and for other common demand models numerically. Our results and insights provide a first step in understanding the impact of imposing fairness in the context of discriminatory pricing. This paper was accepted by Jayashankar Swaminathan, operations management. Funding: A. N. Elmachtoub was supported by the Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation [Grants 1763000 and 1944428]. Supplemental Material: The data files and online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4317 .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
-
We study the problem of allocating indivisible items to budget-constrained agents, aiming to provide fairness and efficiency guarantees. Specifically, our goal is to ensure that the resulting allocation is envy-free up to any item (EFx) while minimizing the amount of inefficiency that this needs to introduce. We first show that there exist two-agent problem instances for which no EFx allocation is Pareto-efficient. We, therefore, turn to approximation and use the (Pareto-efficient) maximum Nash welfare allocation as a benchmark. For two-agent instances, we provide a procedure that always returns an EFx allocation while achieving the best possible approximation of the optimal Nash social welfare that EFx allocations can achieve. For the more complicated case of three-agent instances, we provide a procedure that guarantees EFx, while achieving a constant approximation of the optimal Nash social welfare for any number of items.more » « less
-
Making fair decisions is crucial to ethically implementing machine learning algorithms in social settings. In this work, we consider the celebrated definition of counterfactual fairness. We begin by showing that an algorithm which satisfies counterfactual fairness also satisfies demographic parity, a far simpler fairness constraint. Similarly, we show that all algorithms satisfying demographic parity can be trivially modified to satisfy counterfactual fairness. Together, our results indicate that counterfactual fairness is basically equivalent to demographic parity, which has important implications for the growing body of work on counterfactual fairness. We then validate our theoretical findings empirically, analyzing three existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness against three simple benchmarks. We find that two simple benchmark algorithms outperform all three existing algorithms---in terms of fairness, accuracy, and efficiency---on several data sets. Our analysis leads us to formalize a concrete fairness goal: to preserve the order of individuals within protected groups. We believe transparency around the ordering of individuals within protected groups makes fair algorithms more trustworthy. By design, the two simple benchmark algorithms satisfy this goal while the existing algorithms do not.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Book Chapter:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60597-0_14
