REVIEW 2 cited by
Inherent Trade-offs in the Fair Allocation of Treatments
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Explicit and implicit bias clouds human judgement, leading to discriminatory treatment of minority groups. A fundamental goal of algorithmic fairness is to avoid the pitfalls in human judgement by learning policies that improve the overall outcomes while providing fair treatment to protected classes. In this paper, we propose a causal framework that learns optimal intervention policies from data subject to fairness constraints. We define two measures of treatment bias and infer best treatment assignment that minimizes the bias while optimizing overall outcome. We demonstrate that there is a dilemma of balancing fairness and overall benefit; however, allowing preferential treatment to protected classes in certain circumstances (affirmative action) can dramatically improve the overall benefit while also preserving fairness. We apply our framework to data containing student outcomes on standardized tests and show how it can be used to design real-world policies that fairly improve student test scores. Our framework provides a principled way to learn fair treatment policies in real-world settings.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Fair-Count-Min: Frequency Estimation under Equal Group-wise Approximation Factor
Fair-Count-Min partitions Count-Min columns among groups, allocating columns by group size for one hash row and by a binomial-minimum equation for multiple rows, aiming to equalize expected approximation factors.
-
FairUDT: Fairness-aware Uplift Decision Trees
FairUDT uses uplift-style divergence splitting and selective leaf relabeling to reduce demographic parity and average odds gaps on three fairness benchmarks, with test-set relabeling in its main evaluation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.