Developing a Philosophical Framework for Fair Machine Learning: Lessons From The Case of Algorithmic Collusion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.06308v2
• Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:12:06 GMT
• Title: Developing a Philosophical Framework for Fair Machine Learning: Lessons From The Case of Algorithmic Collusion
• Authors: James Michelson
• Abstract summary: As machine learning algorithms are applied in new contexts the harms and injustices that result are qualitatively different. The existing research paradigm in machine learning which develops metrics and definitions of fairness cannot account for these qualitatively different types of injustice. I propose an ethical framework for researchers and practitioners in machine learning seeking to develop and apply fairness metrics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Fair machine learning research has been primarily concerned with classification tasks that result in discrimination. However, as machine learning algorithms are applied in new contexts the harms and injustices that result are qualitatively different than those presently studied. The existing research paradigm in machine learning which develops metrics and definitions of fairness cannot account for these qualitatively different types of injustice. One example of this is the problem of algorithmic collusion and market fairness. The negative consequences of algorithmic collusion affect all consumers, not only particular members of a protected class. Drawing on this case study, I propose an ethical framework for researchers and practitioners in machine learning seeking to develop and apply fairness metrics that extends to new domains. This contribution ties the development of formal metrics of fairness to specifically scoped normative principles. This enables fairness metrics to reflect different concerns from discrimination. I conclude with the limitations of my proposal and discuss promising avenues for future research.

Related papers

• A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challenges [11.885166133818819]
  Adoption of Machine Learning systems has led to increased concerns about fairness implications. We present a taxonomy for intersectional notions of fairness and mitigation. We identify the key challenges and provide researchers with guidelines for future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T16:49:22Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• Individual Fairness under Uncertainty [26.183244654397477]
  Algorithmic fairness is an established area in machine learning (ML) algorithms. We propose an individual fairness measure and a corresponding algorithm that deal with the challenges of uncertainty arising from censorship in class labels. We argue that this perspective represents a more realistic model of fairness research for real-world application deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T01:07:58Z)
• 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)
• Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review [90.22219142430146]
  We analyze the intersection of fairness in machine learning and healthcare disparities. We provide a critical review of the associated fairness metrics from a machine learning standpoint. We propose several new research directions that hold promise for developing ethical and equitable ML applications in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-29T04:32:10Z)
• A Framework for Fairness: A Systematic Review of Existing Fair AI Solutions [4.594159253008448]
  A large portion of fairness research has gone to producing tools that machine learning practitioners can use to audit for bias while designing their algorithms. There is a lack of application of these fairness solutions in practice. This review provides an in-depth summary of the algorithmic bias issues that have been defined and the fairness solution space that has been proposed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-10T17:51:20Z)
• 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)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• Distributive Justice and Fairness Metrics in Automated Decision-making: How Much Overlap Is There? [0.0]
  We show that metrics implementing equality of opportunity only apply when resource allocations are based on deservingness, but fail when allocations should reflect concerns about egalitarianism, sufficiency, and priority. We argue that by cleanly distinguishing between prediction tasks and decision tasks, research on fair machine learning could take better advantage of the rich literature on distributive justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-04T12:09:26Z)
• Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness [0.0]
  We discuss how such approaches will likely be deemed "algorithmic affirmative action" We argue that the government-contracting cases offer an alternative grounding for algorithmic fairness. We call for more research at the intersection of algorithmic fairness and causal inference to ensure that bias mitigation is tailored to specific causes and mechanisms of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-18T22:53:20Z)

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.