ACROCPoLis: A Descriptive Framework for Making Sense of Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11217v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:14:57 GMT
• Title: ACROCPoLis: A Descriptive Framework for Making Sense of Fairness
• Authors: Andrea Aler Tubella, Dimitri Coelho Mollo, Adam Dahlgren Lindstr\"om, Hannah Devinney, Virginia Dignum, Petter Ericson, Anna Jonsson, Timotheus Kampik, Tom Lenaerts, Julian Alfredo Mendez, Juan Carlos Nieves
• Abstract summary: We propose the ACROCPoLis framework to represent allocation processes with a modeling emphasis on fairness aspects. The framework provides a shared vocabulary in which the factors relevant to fairness assessments for different situations and procedures are made explicit.
• Score: 6.4686347616068005
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness is central to the ethical and responsible development and use of AI systems, with a large number of frameworks and formal notions of algorithmic fairness being available. However, many of the fairness solutions proposed revolve around technical considerations and not the needs of and consequences for the most impacted communities. We therefore want to take the focus away from definitions and allow for the inclusion of societal and relational aspects to represent how the effects of AI systems impact and are experienced by individuals and social groups. In this paper, we do this by means of proposing the ACROCPoLis framework to represent allocation processes with a modeling emphasis on fairness aspects. The framework provides a shared vocabulary in which the factors relevant to fairness assessments for different situations and procedures are made explicit, as well as their interrelationships. This enables us to compare analogous situations, to highlight the differences in dissimilar situations, and to capture differing interpretations of the same situation by different stakeholders.

Related papers

• 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 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)
• What-is and How-to for Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey, Reflection, and Perspective [13.124434298120494]
  We review and reflect on various fairness notions previously proposed in machine learning literature. We also consider the long-term impact that is induced by current prediction and decision. This paper demonstrates the importance of matching the mission (which kind of fairness one would like to enforce) and the means (which spectrum of fairness analysis is of interest) to fulfill the intended purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T18:05:46Z)
• 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)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)
• The Long Arc of Fairness: Formalisations and Ethical Discourse [0.0]
  We argue that the relations between technical (formalised) and ethical discourse on fairness are not always clear and productive. We introduce dynamic fairness modelling, a more comprehensive approach that realigns formal fairness metrics with arguments from the ethical discourse. By contextualising these elements of fairness-related processes, dynamic fairness modelling explicates formerly latent ethical aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T09:54:59Z)
• 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)
• Fairness in Machine Learning [15.934879442202785]
  We show how causal Bayesian networks can play an important role to reason about and deal with fairness. We present a unified framework that encompasses methods that can deal with different settings and fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T18:38:58Z)
• End-to-End Learning and Intervention in Games [60.41921763076017]
  We provide a unified framework for learning and intervention in games. We propose two approaches, respectively based on explicit and implicit differentiation. The analytical results are validated using several real-world problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T18:39:32Z)
• On the Relationship Between Active Inference and Control as Inference [62.997667081978825]
  Active Inference (AIF) is an emerging framework in the brain sciences which suggests that biological agents act to minimise a variational bound on model evidence. Control-as-Inference (CAI) is a framework within reinforcement learning which casts decision making as a variational inference problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T13:03:58Z)

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.