Quantifying the Cross-sectoral Intersecting Discrepancies within Multiple Groups Using Latent Class Analysis Towards Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03133v3
• Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 19:28:05 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Cross-sectoral Intersecting Discrepancies within Multiple Groups Using Latent Class Analysis Towards Fairness
• Authors: Yingfang Yuan, Kefan Chen, Mehdi Rizvi, Lynne Baillie, Wei Pang,
• Abstract summary: ''Leave No One Behind'' initiative urges us to address multiple and intersecting forms of inequality in accessing services, resources, and opportunities. An increasing number of AI tools are applied to decision-making processes in various sectors such as health, energy, and housing. This research introduces an innovative approach to quantify cross-sectoral intersecting discrepancies.
• Score: 6.683051393349788
• License:
• Abstract: The growing interest in fair AI development is evident. The ''Leave No One Behind'' initiative urges us to address multiple and intersecting forms of inequality in accessing services, resources, and opportunities, emphasising the significance of fairness in AI. This is particularly relevant as an increasing number of AI tools are applied to decision-making processes, such as resource allocation and service scheme development, across various sectors such as health, energy, and housing. Therefore, exploring joint inequalities in these sectors is significant and valuable for thoroughly understanding overall inequality and unfairness. This research introduces an innovative approach to quantify cross-sectoral intersecting discrepancies among user-defined groups using latent class analysis. These discrepancies can be used to approximate inequality and provide valuable insights to fairness issues. We validate our approach using both proprietary and public datasets, including both EVENS and Census 2021 (England & Wales) datasets, to examine cross-sectoral intersecting discrepancies among different ethnic groups. We also verify the reliability of the quantified discrepancy by conducting a correlation analysis with a government public metric. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies both among minority ethnic groups and between minority ethnic groups and non-minority ethnic groups, emphasising the need for targeted interventions in policy-making processes. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the proposed approach can provide valuable insights into ensuring fairness in machine learning systems.

Related papers

• Impact of Data Distribution on Fairness Guarantees in Equitable Deep Learning [24.911440326496574]
  We present a theoretical framework analyzing the relationship between data distributions and fairness guarantees in equitable deep learning. We derive comprehensive theoretical bounds for fairness errors and convergence rates, and characterize how distributional differences between groups affect the fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy. This work advances our understanding of fairness in AI-based diagnosis systems and provides a theoretical foundation for developing more equitable algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:43:43Z)
• A Survey on Group Fairness in Federated Learning: Challenges, Taxonomy of Solutions and Directions for Future Research [5.08731160761218]
  Group fairness in machine learning is a critical area of research focused on achieving equitable outcomes across different groups. Federated learning amplifies the need for fairness due to the heterogeneous data distributions across clients. No dedicated survey has focused comprehensively on group fairness in federated learning. We create a novel taxonomy of these approaches based on key criteria such as data partitioning, location, and applied strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:39:28Z)
• Counterpart Fairness -- Addressing Systematic between-group Differences in Fairness Evaluation [17.495053606192375]
  When using machine learning to aid decision-making, it is critical to ensure that an algorithmic decision is fair and does not discriminate against specific individuals/groups. Existing group fairness methods aim to ensure equal outcomes across groups delineated by protected variables like race or gender. In cases where systematic differences between groups play a significant role in outcomes, these methods may overlook the influence of non-protected variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T15:41:12Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• 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)
• Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
  Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)
• No computation without representation: Avoiding data and algorithm biases through diversity [11.12971845021808]
  We draw connections between the lack of diversity within academic and professional computing fields and the type and breadth of the biases encountered in datasets. We use these lessons to develop recommendations that provide concrete steps for the computing community to increase diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-26T23:07:39Z)

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.