An official website of the United States government
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
This content will become publicly available on July 24, 2025
Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains. However, despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations. Consequently, they may lead to discriminatory outcomes against certain communities, particularly marginalized populations, prompting extensive study in fair LLMs. On the other hand, fairness in LLMs, in contrast to fairness in traditional machine learning, entails exclusive backgrounds, taxonomies, and fulfillment techniques. To this end, this survey presents a comprehensive overview of recent advances in the existing literature concerning fair LLMs. Specifically, a brief introduction to LLMs is provided, followed by an analysis of factors contributing to bias in LLMs. Additionally, the concept of fairness in LLMs is discussed categorically, summarizing metrics for evaluating bias in LLMs and existing algorithms for promoting fairness. Furthermore, resources for evaluating bias in LLMs, including toolkits and datasets, are summarized. Finally, existing research challenges and open questions are discussed.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2404039
- PAR ID:
- 10600079
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter
- Volume:
- 26
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1931-0145
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 34 to 48
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Although machine learning (ML) algorithms are widely used to make decisions about individuals in various domains, concerns have arisen that (1) these algorithms are vulnerable to strategic manipulation and "gaming the algorithm"; and (2) ML decisions may exhibit bias against certain social groups. Existing works have largely examined these as two separate issues, e.g., by focusing on building ML algorithms robust to strategic manipulation, or on training a fair ML algorithm. In this study, we set out to understand the impact they each have on the other, and examine how to characterize fair policies in the presence of strategic behavior. The strategic interaction between a decision maker and individuals (as decision takers) is modeled as a two-stage (Stackelberg) game; when designing an algorithm, the former anticipates the latter may manipulate their features in order to receive more favorable decisions. We analytically characterize the equilibrium strategies of both, and examine how the algorithms and their resulting fairness properties are affected when the decision maker is strategic (anticipates manipulation), as well as the impact of fairness interventions on equilibrium strategies. In particular, we identify conditions under which anticipation of strategic behavior may mitigate/exacerbate unfairness, and conditions under which fairness interventions can serve as (dis)incentives for strategic manipulation.more » « less
-
Ranking algorithms in online platforms serve not only users on the demand side, but also items on the supply side. While ranking has traditionally presented items in an order that maximizes their utility to users, the uneven interactions that different items receive as a result of such a ranking can pose item fairness concerns. Moreover, interaction is affected by various forms of bias, two of which have received considerable attention: position bias and selection bias. Position bias occurs due to lower likelihood of observation for items in lower ranked positions. Selection bias occurs because interaction is not possible with items below an arbitrary cutoff position chosen by the front-end application at deployment time (i.e., showing only the top-kitems). A less studied, third form of bias, trust bias, is equally important, as it makes interaction dependent on rank even after observation, by influencing the item’s perceived relevance. To capture interaction disparity in the presence of all three biases, in this paper we introduce a flexible fairness metric. Using this metric, we develop a post-processing algorithm that optimizes fairness in ranking through greedy exploration and allows a tradeoff between fairness and utility. Our algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art fair ranking algorithms on several datasets.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.more » « less
-
To address the sample selection bias between the training and test data, previous research works focus on reweighing biased training data to match the test data and then building classification models on there weighed raining data. However, how to achieve fairness in the built classification models is under-explored. In this paper, we propose a framework for robust and fair learning under sample selection bias. Our framework adopts there weighing estimation approach for bias correction and the minimax robust estimation approach for achieving robustness on prediction accuracy. Moreover, during the minimax optimization, the fairness is achieved under the worst case, which guarantees the model’s fairness on test data. We further develop two algorithms to handle sample selection bias when test data is both available and unavailable.more » « less
