Algorithmic Fairness: A Tolerance Perspective
2405.09543
0
0
Abstract
Recent advancements in machine learning and deep learning have brought algorithmic fairness into sharp focus, illuminating concerns over discriminatory decision making that negatively impacts certain individuals or groups. These concerns have manifested in legal, ethical, and societal challenges, including the erosion of trust in intelligent systems. In response, this survey delves into the existing literature on algorithmic fairness, specifically highlighting its multifaceted social consequences. We introduce a novel taxonomy based on 'tolerance', a term we define as the degree to which variations in fairness outcomes are acceptable, providing a structured approach to understanding the subtleties of fairness within algorithmic decisions. Our systematic review covers diverse industries, revealing critical insights into the balance between algorithmic decision making and social equity. By synthesizing these insights, we outline a series of emerging challenges and propose strategic directions for future research and policy making, with the goal of advancing the field towards more equitable algorithmic systems.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Examines the concept of "algorithmic fairness" and proposes a new perspective based on the legal notion of "tolerance"
- Explores how the degree of tolerance for unfairness in algorithmic decision-making can impact its real-world application and societal impact
- Discusses the challenges in defining and enforcing fairness in algorithms, particularly in the context of machine learning and data science
Plain English Explanation
This paper takes a fresh look at the problem of algorithmic fairness. Instead of focusing solely on eliminating bias and achieving perfect fairness, the authors suggest considering the legal concept of "tolerance" - the idea that some level of unfairness may be acceptable or even necessary in certain situations.
The researchers argue that the degree of tolerance for unfairness in algorithmic decision-making can have significant implications for how these systems are deployed and their real-world impact. For example, a high tolerance for unfairness may be appropriate in certain high-stakes applications, such as medical diagnosis, where the algorithm's accuracy and reliability are paramount. In contrast, a lower tolerance for unfairness may be more suitable for decisions that have a direct impact on people's lives, such as hiring and employment.
The paper delves into the challenges of defining and enforcing fairness in algorithms, particularly in the context of machine learning and data science. It acknowledges that achieving perfect fairness is often an elusive goal and that trade-offs may need to be made between fairness and other important factors, such as accuracy, efficiency, and interpretability.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a new perspective on algorithmic fairness, drawing on the legal concept of "tolerance." The authors argue that the degree of tolerance for unfairness in algorithmic decision-making can have significant implications for how these systems are deployed and their real-world impact.
The researchers explore the challenges in defining and enforcing fairness in algorithms, particularly in the context of machine learning and data science. They acknowledge that achieving perfect fairness is often an elusive goal and that trade-offs may need to be made between fairness and other important factors, such as accuracy, efficiency, and interpretability.
The paper delves into various approaches to specifying, assessing, and enforcing fairness in generative AI systems, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the concept of fairness and its implications in different application domains.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the limitations of the current fairness-focused approach in algorithmic decision-making. The authors' emphasis on the legal notion of "tolerance" provides a fresh perspective that encourages a more pragmatic and context-dependent view of fairness.
One potential criticism is that the paper does not delve deeper into the specific trade-offs and decision-making processes involved in determining the appropriate level of tolerance for unfairness. The authors could have provided more guidance on how to navigate these complex ethical and practical considerations.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential risks and unintended consequences of a "tolerant" approach to algorithmic fairness, such as the potential for entrenching existing biases or overlooking the needs of marginalized communities.
Conclusion
This paper offers a thought-provoking perspective on the challenges of achieving algorithmic fairness. By introducing the concept of "tolerance," the authors encourage researchers and practitioners to consider the nuanced and context-dependent nature of fairness in the real-world deployment of algorithmic systems.
The key takeaway is that a one-size-fits-all approach to fairness may not be appropriate, and that a more balanced and pragmatic perspective is needed to address the complex ethical and practical considerations involved in the design and implementation of fair and responsible algorithms.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
āļø
Fairness in AI: challenges in bridging the gap between algorithms and law
Giorgos Giannopoulos, Maria Psalla, Loukas Kavouras, Dimitris Sacharidis, Jakub Marecek, German M Matilla, Ioannis Emiris
0
0
In this paper we examine algorithmic fairness from the perspective of law aiming to identify best practices and strategies for the specification and adoption of fairness definitions and algorithms in real-world systems and use cases. We start by providing a brief introduction of current anti-discrimination law in the European Union and the United States and discussing the concepts of bias and fairness from an legal and ethical viewpoint. We then proceed by presenting a set of algorithmic fairness definitions by example, aiming to communicate their objectives to non-technical audiences. Then, we introduce a set of core criteria that need to be taken into account when selecting a specific fairness definition for real-world use case applications. Finally, we enumerate a set of key considerations and best practices for the design and employment of fairness methods on real-world AI applications
5/1/2024
ā
Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey
Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J. Dennis, David Graus, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Asia J. Biega
0
0
Employers are adopting algorithmic hiring technology throughout the recruitment pipeline. Algorithmic fairness is especially applicable in this domain due to its high stakes and structural inequalities. Unfortunately, most work in this space provides partial treatment, often constrained by two competing narratives, optimistically focused on replacing biased recruiter decisions or pessimistically pointing to the automation of discrimination. Whether, and more importantly what types of, algorithmic hiring can be less biased and more beneficial to society than low-tech alternatives currently remains unanswered, to the detriment of trustworthiness. This multidisciplinary survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness. Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.
4/9/2024
š
Fair by design: A sociotechnical approach to justifying the fairness of AI-enabled systems across the lifecycle
Marten H. L. Kaas, Christopher Burr, Zoe Porter, Berk Ozturk, Philippa Ryan, Michael Katell, Nuala Polo, Kalle Westerling, Ibrahim Habli
0
0
Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines, and the development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation. But most approaches to addressing the fairness of AI-enabled systems are limited in scope in two significant ways: their substantive content focuses on statistical measures of fairness, and they do not emphasize the need to identify and address fairness considerations across the whole AI lifecycle. Our contribution is to present an assurance framework and tool that can enable a practical and transparent method for widening the scope of fairness considerations across the AI lifecycle and move the discussion beyond mere statistical notions of fairness to consider a richer analysis in a practical and context-dependent manner. To illustrate this approach, we first describe and then apply the framework of Trustworthy and Ethical Assurance (TEA) to an AI-enabled clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) whose purpose is to help clinicians predict the risk of developing hypertension in patients with Type 2 diabetes, a context in which several fairness considerations arise (e.g., discrimination against patient subgroups). This is supplemented by an open-source tool and a fairness considerations map to help facilitate reasoning about the fairness of AI-enabled systems in a participatory way. In short, by using a shared framework for identifying, documenting and justifying fairness considerations, and then using this deliberative exercise to structure an assurance case, research on AI fairness becomes reusable and generalizable for others in the ethical AI community and for sharing best practices for achieving fairness and equity in digital health and healthcare in particular.
6/14/2024
Long-Term Fairness Inquiries and Pursuits in Machine Learning: A Survey of Notions, Methods, and Challenges
Usman Gohar, Zeyu Tang, Jialu Wang, Kun Zhang, Peter L. Spirtes, Yang Liu, Lu Cheng
0
0
The widespread integration of Machine Learning systems in daily life, particularly in high-stakes domains, has raised concerns about the fairness implications. While prior works have investigated static fairness measures, recent studies reveal that automated decision-making has long-term implications and that off-the-shelf fairness approaches may not serve the purpose of achieving long-term fairness. Additionally, the existence of feedback loops and the interaction between models and the environment introduces additional complexities that may deviate from the initial fairness goals. In this survey, we review existing literature on long-term fairness from different perspectives and present a taxonomy for long-term fairness studies. We highlight key challenges and consider future research directions, analyzing both current issues and potential further explorations.
6/12/2024