Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness
0
đď¸
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences.
- However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept of bias.
- Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all.
- To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias.
Plain English Explanation
The paper proposes to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. It also proposes to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. These definitions are intended to help study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way.
The paper compares these definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. It also discusses how the definitions relate to discrimination.
The paper illustrates the proposed definitions of bias and disparity using two case studies: one on gender bias in science and another on racial bias in police shootings. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the causal intricacies involved in studying biases and disparities, and to promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes definitions for the concepts of bias and disparity to enable more rigorous and systematic study of these phenomena. Bias is defined as a direct causal effect that is unjustified, while disparity is defined as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias.
These definitions are compared to various fairness criteria introduced in the artificial intelligence literature, and the relationship between the proposed definitions and discrimination is discussed.
The paper illustrates the proposed definitions using two case studies: gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. These case studies are used to demonstrate how the definitions can be applied to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic manner.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges that the literature does not always provide clear definitions of bias, which can make it challenging to study these phenomena in a precise way. The proposed definitions of bias and disparity aim to address this issue by providing a more rigorous framework for conceptualizing and investigating these concepts.
One potential limitation of the paper is that the proposed definitions may not fully capture the complexity of real-world biases and disparities, which can be influenced by a variety of factors beyond direct or indirect causal effects. Additionally, the paper does not explore potential challenges or limitations in applying these definitions in empirical research.
Despite these potential concerns, the paper's focus on developing a more standardized approach to studying biases and disparities is valuable, as it can contribute to a better understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying these phenomena and their policy implications.
Conclusion
This paper proposes a set of definitions for the concepts of bias and disparity that aim to enable more rigorous and systematic study of these important topics in the social and behavioural sciences. The proposed definitions are compared to fairness criteria in the artificial intelligence literature and are illustrated using case studies on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings.
The paper's focus on developing a standardized approach to studying biases and disparities has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying these phenomena and their policy implications. While the proposed definitions may have some limitations, the paper's overall aim to promote a more rigorous and systematic approach to this important area of research is valuable.
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
đď¸
0
Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness
V. A. Traag, L. Waltman
The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences. However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept. Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all. To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias. We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way. We compare our definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. In addition, we discuss how our definitions relate to discrimination. We illustrate our definitions of bias and disparity in two case studies, focusing on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. Our proposed definitions aim to contribute to a better appreciation of the causal intricacies of studies of biases and disparities. We hope that this will also promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.
Read more7/22/2024
0
Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective
Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
Read more5/27/2024
0
Towards Standardizing AI Bias Exploration
Emmanouil Krasanakis, Symeon Papadopoulos
Creating fair AI systems is a complex problem that involves the assessment of context-dependent bias concerns. Existing research and programming libraries express specific concerns as measures of bias that they aim to constrain or mitigate. In practice, one should explore a wide variety of (sometimes incompatible) measures before deciding which ones warrant corrective action, but their narrow scope means that most new situations can only be examined after devising new measures. In this work, we present a mathematical framework that distils literature measures of bias into building blocks, hereby facilitating new combinations to cover a wide range of fairness concerns, such as classification or recommendation differences across multiple multi-value sensitive attributes (e.g., many genders and races, and their intersections). We show how this framework generalizes existing concepts and present frequently used blocks. We provide an open-source implementation of our framework as a Python library, called FairBench, that facilitates systematic and extensible exploration of potential bias concerns.
Read more5/30/2024
0
Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases
Athena Vakali, Nicoleta Tantalaki
Nowadays, we delegate many of our decisions to Artificial Intelligence (AI) that acts either in solo or as a human companion in decisions made to support several sensitive domains, like healthcare, financial services and law enforcement. AI systems, even carefully designed to be fair, are heavily criticized for delivering misjudged and discriminated outcomes against individuals and groups. Numerous work on AI algorithmic fairness is devoted on Machine Learning pipelines which address biases and quantify fairness under a pure computational view. However, the continuous unfair and unjust AI outcomes, indicate that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. Although, the synergy of humans and machines seems imperative to make AI work, the significant impact of human and societal factors on AI bias is currently overlooked. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. Inspired by the cognitive science definition and taxonomy of human heuristics, we identify how harmful human actions influence the overall AI lifecycle, and reveal human to AI biases hidden pathways. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the human heuristics to AI biases reflections and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies. We envision that this approach will contribute in revisiting AI fairness under deeper human-centric case studies, revealing hidden biases cause and effects.
Read more8/1/2024