REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitions
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
read the original abstract
Past literature has been effective in demonstrating ideological gaps in machine learning (ML) fairness definitions when considering their use in complex socio-technical systems. However, we go further to demonstrate that these definitions often misunderstand the legal concepts from which they purport to be inspired, and consequently inappropriately co-opt legal language. In this paper, we demonstrate examples of this misalignment and discuss the differences in ML terminology and their legal counterparts, as well as what both the legal and ML fairness communities can learn from these tensions. We focus this paper on U.S. anti-discrimination law since the ML fairness research community regularly references terms from this body of law.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluating Fairness and Mitigating Bias in Machine Learning: A Novel Technique using Tensor Data and Bayesian Regression
A new annotation-free pipeline converts skin pixels into ITA distributions, measures skin-tone differences with a signed distance, and reweights the loss to reduce the correlation between skin tone and model performance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.