What's Distributive Justice Got to Do with It? Rethinking Algorithmic Fairness from the Perspective of Approximate Justice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12488v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:13:23 GMT
• Title: What's Distributive Justice Got to Do with It? Rethinking Algorithmic Fairness from the Perspective of Approximate Justice
• Authors: Corinna Hertweck, Christoph Heitz, Michele Loi,
• Abstract summary: We argue that in the context of imperfect decision-making systems, we should not only care about what the ideal distribution of benefits/harms among individuals would look like. This requires us to rethink the way in which we, as algorithmic fairness researchers, view distributive justice and use fairness criteria.
• Score: 1.8434042562191815
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In the field of algorithmic fairness, many fairness criteria have been proposed. Oftentimes, their proposal is only accompanied by a loose link to ideas from moral philosophy -- which makes it difficult to understand when the proposed criteria should be used to evaluate the fairness of a decision-making system. More recently, researchers have thus retroactively tried to tie existing fairness criteria to philosophical concepts. Group fairness criteria have typically been linked to egalitarianism, a theory of distributive justice. This makes it tempting to believe that fairness criteria mathematically represent ideals of distributive justice and this is indeed how they are typically portrayed. In this paper, we will discuss why the current approach of linking algorithmic fairness and distributive justice is too simplistic and, hence, insufficient. We argue that in the context of imperfect decision-making systems -- which is what we deal with in algorithmic fairness -- we should not only care about what the ideal distribution of benefits/harms among individuals would look like but also about how deviations from said ideal are distributed. Our claim is that algorithmic fairness is concerned with unfairness in these deviations. This requires us to rethink the way in which we, as algorithmic fairness researchers, view distributive justice and use fairness criteria.

Related papers

• Implementing Fairness: the view from a FairDream [0.0]
  We train an AI model and develop our own fairness package FairDream to detect inequalities and then to correct for them. Our experiments show that it is a property of FairDream to fulfill fairness objectives which are conditional on the ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T06:06:24Z)
• Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness [15.83823345486604]
  We motivatefactual fairness by showing that there is not a fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy. Counterfactual fairness can sometimes be tested by measuring relatively simple group fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T16:07:57Z)
• FFB: A Fair Fairness Benchmark for In-Processing Group Fairness Methods [84.1077756698332]
  This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (textsfFFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. We provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T19:51:28Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• 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)
• Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Parity [0.0]
  Making fair decisions is crucial to ethically implementing machine learning algorithms in social settings. We show that an algorithm which satisfies counterfactual fairness also satisfies demographic parity. We formalize a concrete fairness goal: to preserve the order of individuals within protected groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-07T23:38:59Z)
• How Robust is Your Fairness? Evaluating and Sustaining Fairness under Unseen Distribution Shifts [107.72786199113183]
  We propose a novel fairness learning method termed CUrvature MAtching (CUMA) CUMA achieves robust fairness generalizable to unseen domains with unknown distributional shifts. We evaluate our method on three popular fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T02:37:50Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy [2.28438857884398]
  'Algorithmic fairness' aims to mitigate harmful biases in data-driven algorithms. The perspectives of feminist political philosophers on social justice have been largely neglected. This paper brings some key insights of feminist political philosophy to algorithmic fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-02T09:18:03Z)
• Towards the Right Kind of Fairness in AI [3.723553383515688]
  "Fairness Compass" is a tool which makes identifying the most appropriate fairness metric for a given system a simple, straightforward procedure. We argue that documenting the reasoning behind the respective decisions in the course of this process can help to build trust from the user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-16T21:12:30Z)
• Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness [48.76267073341723]
  We define conditional fairness as a more sound fairness metric by conditioning on the fairness variables. We propose a Derivable Conditional Fairness Regularizer (DCFR) to track the trade-off between precision and fairness of algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T12:56:28Z)

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.