On Consequentialism and Fairness
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.00329v2
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 04:36:44 GMT
- Title: On Consequentialism and Fairness
- Authors: Dallas Card and Noah A. Smith
- Abstract summary: We provide a consequentialist critique of common definitions of fairness within machine learning.
We conclude with a broader discussion of the issues of learning and randomization.
- Score: 64.35872952140677
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Recent work on fairness in machine learning has primarily emphasized how to
define, quantify, and encourage "fair" outcomes. Less attention has been paid,
however, to the ethical foundations which underlie such efforts. Among the
ethical perspectives that should be taken into consideration is
consequentialism, the position that, roughly speaking, outcomes are all that
matter. Although consequentialism is not free from difficulties, and although
it does not necessarily provide a tractable way of choosing actions (because of
the combined problems of uncertainty, subjectivity, and aggregation), it
nevertheless provides a powerful foundation from which to critique the existing
literature on machine learning fairness. Moreover, it brings to the fore some
of the tradeoffs involved, including the problem of who counts, the pros and
cons of using a policy, and the relative value of the distant future. In this
paper we provide a consequentialist critique of common definitions of fairness
within machine learning, as well as a machine learning perspective on
consequentialism. We conclude with a broader discussion of the issues of
learning and randomization, which have important implications for the ethics of
automated decision making systems.
Related papers
- The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning [70.16523526957162]
Understanding commonsense causality helps people understand the principles of the real world better.
Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking.
Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, and provide a pragmatic guide for beginners.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-27T16:30:50Z) - Algorithmic Fairness: A Tolerance Perspective [31.882207568746168]
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.
Our systematic review covers diverse industries, revealing critical insights into the balance between algorithmic decision making and social equity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-26T08:16:54Z) - The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning [0.0]
We show that there is a trade-off between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes in any data setting where group disparities exist.
We introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation to aid researchers and designers in understanding the relationship between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-02T10:07:12Z) - Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings.
We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits.
We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z) - Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings.
The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms.
Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z) - What-is and How-to for Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey,
Reflection, and Perspective [13.124434298120494]
We review and reflect on various fairness notions previously proposed in machine learning literature.
We also consider the long-term impact that is induced by current prediction and decision.
This paper demonstrates the importance of matching the mission (which kind of fairness one would like to enforce) and the means (which spectrum of fairness analysis is of interest) to fulfill the intended purpose.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T18:05:46Z) - Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of
Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches [0.0]
This survey article assesses and compares critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions into machine learning (ML)
It draws from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies.
The article concludes by imagining future ML fairness research directions that actively disrupt entrenched power dynamics and structural injustices in society.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-06T14:27:57Z) - The zoo of Fairness metrics in Machine Learning [62.997667081978825]
In recent years, the problem of addressing fairness in Machine Learning (ML) and automatic decision-making has attracted a lot of attention.
A plethora of different definitions of fairness in ML have been proposed, that consider different notions of what is a "fair decision" in situations impacting individuals in the population.
In this work, we try to make some order out of this zoo of definitions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-01T13:19:30Z) - Who Gets What, According to Whom? An Analysis of Fairness Perceptions in
Service Allocation [2.69180747382622]
We experimentally explore five novel research questions at the intersection of the "Who," "What," and "How" of fairness perceptions.
Our results suggest that the "Who" and "What," at least, matter in ways that are 1) not easily explained by any one theoretical perspective, 2) have critical implications for how perceptions of fairness should be measured and/or integrated into algorithmic decision-making systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-10T15:31:22Z) - Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life
Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics.
We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes.
Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.