Causal Conceptions of Fairness and their Consequences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05302v1
• Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:26:26 GMT
• Title: Causal Conceptions of Fairness and their Consequences
• Authors: Hamed Nilforoshan, Johann Gaebler, Ravi Shroff, Sharad Goel
• Abstract summary: We show that two families of causal definitions of algorithmic fairness result in strongly dominated decision policies. We prove the resulting policies require admitting all students with the same probability, regardless of academic qualifications or group membership.
• Score: 1.9006392177894293
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent work highlights the role of causality in designing equitable decision-making algorithms. It is not immediately clear, however, how existing causal conceptions of fairness relate to one another, or what the consequences are of using these definitions as design principles. Here, we first assemble and categorize popular causal definitions of algorithmic fairness into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on counterfactual disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions \emph{almost always} -- in a measure theoretic sense -- result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies, meaning there is an alternative, unconstrained policy favored by every stakeholder with preferences drawn from a large, natural class. For example, in the case of college admissions decisions, policies constrained to satisfy causal fairness definitions would be disfavored by every stakeholder with neutral or positive preferences for both academic preparedness and diversity. Indeed, under a prominent definition of causal fairness, we prove the resulting policies require admitting all students with the same probability, regardless of academic qualifications or group membership. Our results highlight formal limitations and potential adverse consequences of common mathematical notions of causal fairness.

Related papers

• Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective [58.06306331390586]
  We analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We show that enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. We introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T11:19:52Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• 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)
• Fairness Through Counterfactual Utilities [0.0]
  Group fairness definitions such as Demographic Parity and Equal Opportunity make assumptions about the underlying decision-problem that restrict them to classification problems. We provide a generalized set of group fairness definitions that unambiguously extend to all machine learning environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T16:51:27Z)
• Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions [4.157415305926584]
  This paper examines an exhaustive list of causal-based fairness notions and study their applicability in real-world scenarios. As the majority of causal-based fairness notions are defined in terms of non-observable quantities, their deployment in practice requires to compute or estimate those quantities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T14:28:55Z)
• On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse [36.519629650529666]
  We propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level. We show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T16:35:06Z)
• Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness [48.76267073341723]
  We define conditional fairness as a more sound fairness metric by conditioning on the fairness variables. We propose a Derivable Conditional Fairness Regularizer (DCFR) to track the trade-off between precision and fairness of algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T12:56:28Z)
• Principal Fairness for Human and Algorithmic Decision-Making [1.2691047660244335]
  We introduce a new notion of fairness, called principal fairness, for human and algorithmic decision-making. Unlike the existing statistical definitions of fairness, principal fairness explicitly accounts for the fact that individuals can be impacted by the decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-21T00:24:54Z)
• On Consequentialism and Fairness [64.35872952140677]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-02T05:39:48Z)
• The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness [6.6697126372463345]
  We argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences. We offer strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2018-07-31T18:38:04Z)

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.