Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.00469v5
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:49:55 GMT
• Title: Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law
• Authors: Meike Zehlike, Alex Loosley, Håkan Jonsson, Emil Wiedemann, Philipp Hacker,
• Abstract summary: We present a novel algorithm (FAir Interpolation Method: FAIM) for continuously interpolating between three fairness criteria. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm when applied to synthetic data, the COMPAS data set, and a new, real-world data set from the e-commerce sector.
• Score: 2.959308758321417
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Fair and trustworthy AI is becoming ever more important in both machine learning and legal domains. One important consequence is that decision makers must seek to guarantee a 'fair', i.e., non-discriminatory, algorithmic decision procedure. However, there are several competing notions of algorithmic fairness that have been shown to be mutually incompatible under realistic factual assumptions. This concerns, for example, the widely used fairness measures of 'calibration within groups' and 'balance for the positive/negative class'. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm (FAir Interpolation Method: FAIM) for continuously interpolating between these three fairness criteria. Thus, an initially unfair prediction can be remedied to, at least partially, meet a desired, weighted combination of the respective fairness conditions. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm when applied to synthetic data, the COMPAS data set, and a new, real-world data set from the e-commerce sector. Finally, we discuss to what extent FAIM can be harnessed to comply with conflicting legal obligations. The analysis suggests that it may operationalize duties in traditional legal fields, such as credit scoring and criminal justice proceedings, but also for the latest AI regulations put forth in the EU, like the Digital Markets Act and the recently enacted AI Act.

Related papers

• Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity [3.5607241839298878]
  Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T09:38:05Z)
• 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)
• Regulating Gatekeeper AI and Data: Transparency, Access, and Fairness under the DMA, the GDPR, and beyond [2.608935407927351]
  We analyze the impact of the DMA and related EU acts on AI models and their underlying data across four key areas. We show how, based on CJEU jurisprudence, a coherent interpretation of the concept of non-discrimination in both traditional non-discrimination and competition law may be found.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-09T17:29:19Z)
• Practical Approaches for Fair Learning with Multitype and Multivariate Sensitive Attributes [70.6326967720747]
  It is important to guarantee that machine learning algorithms deployed in the real world do not result in unfairness or unintended social consequences. We introduce FairCOCCO, a fairness measure built on cross-covariance operators on reproducing kernel Hilbert Spaces. We empirically demonstrate consistent improvements against state-of-the-art techniques in balancing predictive power and fairness on real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T11:28:46Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness in Business Analytics: Directions for Research and Practice [24.309795052068388]
  This paper offers a forward-looking, BA-focused review of algorithmic fairness. We first review the state-of-the-art research on sources and measures of bias, as well as bias mitigation algorithms. We then provide a detailed discussion of the utility-fairness relationship, emphasizing that the frequent assumption of a trade-off between these two constructs is often mistaken or short-sighted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T10:21:38Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Can Active Learning Preemptively Mitigate Fairness Issues? [66.84854430781097]
  dataset bias is one of the prevailing causes of unfairness in machine learning. We study whether models trained with uncertainty-based ALs are fairer in their decisions with respect to a protected class. We also explore the interaction of algorithmic fairness methods such as gradient reversal (GRAD) and BALD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T14:20:22Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)
• 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)
• Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer for Imbalanced Domain Adaptation [61.317911756566126]
  We propose a Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer framework to handle the fairness challenge in imbalanced cross-domain learning. Specifically, a novel cross-domain mixup generation is exploited to augment the minority source set with target information to enhance fairness. Our model significantly improves over 20% on two benchmarks in terms of the overall accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T06:29:09Z)
• Towards a Flexible Framework for Algorithmic Fairness [0.8379286663107844]
  In recent years, many different definitions for ensuring non-discrimination in algorithmic decision systems have been put forward. We present an algorithm that harnesses optimal transport to provide a flexible framework to interpolate between different fairness definitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T16:06:53Z)

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.