Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08394v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:38:05 GMT
• Title: Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity
• Authors: Lisa Koutsoviti Koumeri, Magali Legast, Yasaman Yousefi, Koen Vanhoof, Axel Legay, Christoph Schommer
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.5607241839298878
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 supports the contextual approach to fairness in EU non-discrimination legal framework and aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. For that, we analyze the legal notion of non-discrimination and differential treatment with the fairness definition Demographic Parity (DP) through Conditional Demographic Disparity (CDD). We train and compare different classifiers with fairness constraints to assess whether it is possible to reduce bias in the prediction while enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination laws. Our experimental results on three scenarios show that the in-processing bias mitigation algorithm leads to different performances in each of them. 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. These preliminary results encourage future work which will involve further case studies, metrics, and fairness notions.

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)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• 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)
• Algorithmic Unfairness through the Lens of EU Non-Discrimination Law: Or Why the Law is not a Decision Tree [5.153559154345212]
  We show that EU non-discrimination law coincides with notions of algorithmic fairness proposed in computer science literature. We set out the normative underpinnings of fairness metrics and technical interventions and compare these to the legal reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. We conclude with implications for AI practitioners and regulators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T12:00:39Z)
• Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law [2.959308758321417]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T12:47:54Z)
• 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)
• Conditional Supervised Contrastive Learning for Fair Text Classification [59.813422435604025]
  We study learning fair representations that satisfy a notion of fairness known as equalized odds for text classification via contrastive learning. Specifically, we first theoretically analyze the connections between learning representations with a fairness constraint and conditional supervised contrastive objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:38:30Z)
• Legal perspective on possible fairness measures - A legal discussion using the example of hiring decisions (preprint) [0.0]
  We explain the different kinds of fairness concepts that might be applicable for the specific application of hiring decisions. We analyze their pros and cons with regard to the respective fairness interpretation and evaluate them from a legal perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T06:41:39Z)
• 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)
• Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI [10.281644134255576]
  Article identifies a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing statistical measures of fairness. We show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. We propose "conditional demographic disparity" (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T16:30:12Z)

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.