The Equity Framework: Fairness Beyond Equalized Predictive Outcomes
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01072v1
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:49:51 GMT
- Title: The Equity Framework: Fairness Beyond Equalized Predictive Outcomes
- Authors: Keziah Naggita and J. Ceasar Aguma
- Abstract summary: We study fairness issues that arise when decision-makers use models that deviate from the models that depict the physical and social environment.
We formulate an Equity Framework that considers equal access to the model, equal outcomes from the model, and equal utilization of the model.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Machine Learning (ML) decision-making algorithms are now widely used in
predictive decision-making, for example, to determine who to admit and give a
loan. Their wide usage and consequential effects on individuals led the ML
community to question and raise concerns on how the algorithms differently
affect different people and communities. In this paper, we study fairness
issues that arise when decision-makers use models (proxy models) that deviate
from the models that depict the physical and social environment in which the
decisions are situated (intended models). We also highlight the effect of
obstacles on individual access and utilization of the models. To this end, we
formulate an Equity Framework that considers equal access to the model, equal
outcomes from the model, and equal utilization of the model, and
consequentially achieves equity and higher social welfare than current fairness
notions that aim for equality. We show how the three main aspects of the
framework are connected and provide an equity scoring algorithm and questions
to guide decision-makers towards equitable decision-making. We show how failure
to consider access, outcome, and utilization would exacerbate proxy gaps
leading to an infinite inequity loop that reinforces structural inequities
through inaccurate and incomplete ground truth curation. We, therefore,
recommend a more critical look at the model design and its effect on equity and
a shift towards equity achieving predictive decision-making models.
Related papers
- From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learning [3.2132738637761027]
We evaluate fairness in preference learning models inspired by economic theories of inequality and Rawlsian justice.
We propose metrics adapted from the Gini Coefficient, Atkinson Index, and Kuznets Ratio to quantify fairness in these models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-24T15:25:56Z) - Structural Interventions and the Dynamics of Inequality [0.0]
We show that technical solutions must be paired with external, context-aware interventions to enact social change.
This research highlights the ways that structural inequality can be perpetuated by seemingly unbiased decision mechanisms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-03T13:44:38Z) - Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgets [56.24971011281947]
We introduce a latent inference budget model (L-IBM) that models agents' computational constraints explicitly.
L-IBMs make it possible to learn agent models using data from diverse populations of suboptimal actors.
We show that L-IBMs match or outperform Boltzmann models of decision-making under uncertainty.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-07T03:55:51Z) - Bridging the gap: Towards an Expanded Toolkit for AI-driven Decision-Making in the Public Sector [6.693502127460251]
AI-driven decision-making systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector, with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare, financial fraud detection, and public health.
These systems face the challenge of aligning machine learning (ML) models with the complex realities of public sector decision-making.
We examine five key challenges where misalignment can occur, including distribution shifts, label bias, the influence of past decision-making on the data side, as well as competing objectives and human-in-the-loop on the model output side.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-29T17:44:48Z) - On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More
Than a Fair Prediction Model [1.3996171129586732]
An implicit ambiguity in the field of prediction-based decision-making regards the relation between the concepts of prediction and decision.
We show the different ways in which these two elements influence the final fairness properties of a prediction-based decision system.
We propose a framework that enables a better understanding and reasoning of the conceptual logic of creating fairness in prediction-based decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-09T10:34:42Z) - Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable.
In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision.
We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z) - Fairness Increases Adversarial Vulnerability [50.90773979394264]
This paper shows the existence of a dichotomy between fairness and robustness, and analyzes when achieving fairness decreases the model robustness to adversarial samples.
Experiments on non-linear models and different architectures validate the theoretical findings in multiple vision domains.
The paper proposes a simple, yet effective, solution to construct models achieving good tradeoffs between fairness and robustness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-21T19:55:35Z) - 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) - Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective
Labels [69.64662540443162]
We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance.
We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities.
We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z) - Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system.
Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
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.