Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.05753v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:33:14 GMT
• Title: Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunities
• Authors: Samer B. Nashed, Justin Svegliato and Su Lin Blodgett
• Abstract summary: We compare and discuss work across two major subsets of this literature: algorithmic fairness, and ethical decision making. We explore how each of these settings has articulated its normative concerns, the viability of different techniques for these different settings, and how ideas from each setting may have utility for the other.
• Score: 24.471814126358556
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As automated decision making and decision assistance systems become common in everyday life, research on the prevention or mitigation of potential harms that arise from decisions made by these systems has proliferated. However, various research communities have independently conceptualized these harms, envisioned potential applications, and proposed interventions. The result is a somewhat fractured landscape of literature focused generally on ensuring decision-making algorithms "do the right thing". In this paper, we compare and discuss work across two major subsets of this literature: algorithmic fairness, which focuses primarily on predictive systems, and ethical decision making, which focuses primarily on sequential decision making and planning. We explore how each of these settings has articulated its normative concerns, the viability of different techniques for these different settings, and how ideas from each setting may have utility for the other.

Related papers

• Risk-reducing design and operations toolkit: 90 strategies for managing risk and uncertainty in decision problems [65.268245109828]
  This paper develops a catalog of such strategies and develops a framework for them. It argues that they provide an efficient response to decision problems that are seemingly intractable due to high uncertainty. It then proposes a framework to incorporate them into decision theory using multi-objective optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-06T16:14:32Z)
• On solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• 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)
• A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offs [0.0]
  In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds. The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. We propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T20:31:55Z)
• A Human-Centric Perspective on Fairness and Transparency in Algorithmic Decision-Making [0.0]
  Automated decision systems (ADS) are increasingly used for consequential decision-making. Non-transparent systems are prone to yield unfair outcomes because their sanity is challenging to assess and calibrate. I aim to make the following three main contributions through my doctoral thesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T18:31:04Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Differential Privacy and Fairness in Decisions and Learning Tasks: A Survey [50.90773979394264]
  It reviews the conditions under which privacy and fairness may have aligned or contrasting goals. It analyzes how and why DP may exacerbate bias and unfairness in decision problems and learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-16T16:50:23Z)
• Randomized Classifiers vs Human Decision-Makers: Trustworthy AI May Have to Act Randomly and Society Seems to Accept This [0.8889304968879161]
  We feel that akin to human decisions, judgments of artificial agents should necessarily be grounded in some moral principles. Yet a decision-maker can only make truly ethical (based on any ethical theory) and fair (according to any notion of fairness) decisions if full information on all the relevant factors on which the decision is based are available at the time of decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T05:39:02Z)
• Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions [18.155121103400333]
  We describe and analyse the perspectives of people and organisations who made submissions in response to Australia's proposed AI Ethics Framework' Our findings reveal that while the nature of contestability is disputed, it is seen as a way to protect individuals, and it resembles contestability in relation to human decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T05:13:18Z)
• A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects [24.615500469071183]
  We focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T15:15:34Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)

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.