REVIEW 3 cited by
What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds
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
A growing body of literature in fairness-aware machine learning (fairML) aims to mitigate machine learning (ML)-related unfairness in automated decision-making (ADM) by defining metrics that measure fairness of an ML model and by proposing methods to ensure that trained ML models achieve low scores on these metrics. However, the underlying concept of fairness, i.e., the question of what fairness is, is rarely discussed, leaving a significant gap between centuries of philosophical discussion and the recent adoption of the concept in the ML community. In this work, we try to bridge this gap by formalizing a consistent concept of fairness and by translating the philosophical considerations into a formal framework for the training and evaluation of ML models in ADM systems. We argue that fairness problems can arise even without the presence of protected attributes (PAs), and point out that fairness and predictive performance are not irreconcilable opposites, but that the latter is necessary to achieve the former. Furthermore, we argue why and how causal considerations are necessary when assessing fairness in the presence of PAs by proposing a fictitious, normatively desired (FiND) world in which PAs have no causal effects. In practice, this FiND world must be approximated by a warped world in which the causal effects of the PAs are removed from the real-world data. Finally, we achieve greater linguistic clarity in the discussion of fairML. We outline algorithms for practical applications and present illustrative experiments on COMPAS data.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Privilege Scores
Privilege scores quantify the difference between real-world model predictions and predictions in a fair world with the protected attribute's influence removed, plus Shapley-based contributions explaining each privilege path.
-
Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspective
Using the FiND world, a hypothetical fair world where protected attributes have no causal effect on the target, the authors show that fairness metrics become compatible and fairness aligns with accuracy, and that pre-...
-
Are All Genders Equal in the Eyes of Algorithms? -- Analysing Search and Retrieval Algorithms for Algorithmic Gender Fairness
Male German professors receive more Google search results and more name-matched publication records than female professors, but no baseline shows whether algorithms amplify real-world differences.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.