On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15310v2
• Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 02:23:37 GMT
• Title: On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions
• Authors: Talia Gillis, Bryce McLaughlin, Jann Spiess
• Abstract summary: We show that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. In the lab experiment, we demonstrate how predictions informed by gender-specific information can reduce average gender disparities in decisions.
• Score: 3.4069627091757178
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: When machine-learning algorithms are used in high-stakes decisions, we want to ensure that their deployment leads to fair and equitable outcomes. This concern has motivated a fast-growing literature that focuses on diagnosing and addressing disparities in machine predictions. However, many machine predictions are deployed to assist in decisions where a human decision-maker retains the ultimate decision authority. In this article, we therefore consider in a formal model and in a lab experiment how properties of machine predictions affect the resulting human decisions. In our formal model of statistical decision-making, we show that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. Specifically, we document that excluding information about protected groups from the prediction may fail to reduce, and may even increase, ultimate disparities. In the lab experiment, we demonstrate how predictions informed by gender-specific information can reduce average gender disparities in decisions. While our concrete theoretical results rely on specific assumptions about the data, algorithm, and decision-maker, and the experiment focuses on a particular prediction task, our findings show more broadly that any study of critical properties of complex decision systems, such as the fairness of machine-assisted human decisions, should go beyond focusing on the underlying algorithmic predictions in isolation.

Related papers

• Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions [18.27590643693167]
  We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T16:21:37Z)
• Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding [2.8498944632323755]
  We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T20:41:44Z)
• 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)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• What Should I Know? Using Meta-gradient Descent for Predictive Feature Discovery in a Single Stream of Experience [63.75363908696257]
  computational reinforcement learning seeks to construct an agent's perception of the world through predictions of future sensations. An open challenge in this line of work is determining from the infinitely many predictions that the agent could possibly make which predictions might best support decision-making. We introduce a meta-gradient descent process by which an agent learns what predictions to make, 2) the estimates for its chosen predictions, and 3) how to use those estimates to generate policies that maximize future reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T21:31:06Z)
• Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions during Skillful Joint-Action via Machine Learning and Explainable-AI [1.3381749415517021]
  This study uses supervised machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence to model, predict and understand human decision-making. Long short-term memory networks were trained to predict the target selection decisions of expert and novice actors completing a dyadic herding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T16:54:43Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
  We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty. We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions. This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z)
• Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding [74.90756694584839]
  We study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-30T15:49:05Z)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)

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.