A Review of Fairness and A Practical Guide to Selecting Context-Appropriate Fairness Metrics in Machine Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06624v1
• Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:13:28 GMT
• Title: A Review of Fairness and A Practical Guide to Selecting Context-Appropriate Fairness Metrics in Machine Learning
• Authors: Caleb J. S. Barr, Olivia Erdelyi, Paul D. Docherty, Randolph C. Grace,
• Abstract summary: We develop a flowchart to guide the selection of contextually appropriate fairness measures. This included consideration of model assessment criteria, model selection criteria, and data bias.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Recent regulatory proposals for artificial intelligence emphasize fairness requirements for machine learning models. However, precisely defining the appropriate measure of fairness is challenging due to philosophical, cultural and political contexts. Biases can infiltrate machine learning models in complex ways depending on the model's context, rendering a single common metric of fairness insufficient. This ambiguity highlights the need for criteria to guide the selection of context-aware measures, an issue of increasing importance given the proliferation of ever tighter regulatory requirements. To address this, we developed a flowchart to guide the selection of contextually appropriate fairness measures. Twelve criteria were used to formulate the flowchart. This included consideration of model assessment criteria, model selection criteria, and data bias. We also review fairness literature in the context of machine learning and link it to core regulatory instruments to assist policymakers, AI developers, researchers, and other stakeholders in appropriately addressing fairness concerns and complying with relevant regulatory requirements.

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [59.424918263776284]
  The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of large language models (LLMs) We review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness. We develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• Normative Requirements Operationalization with Large Language Models [3.456725053685842]
  Normative non-functional requirements specify constraints that a system must observe in order to avoid violations of social, legal, ethical, empathetic, and cultural norms. Recent research has tackled this challenge using a domain-specific language to specify normative requirements. We propose a complementary approach that uses Large Language Models to extract semantic relationships between abstract representations of system capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T17:01:34Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Disentanglement in Generative Models Without Knowledge of Latent Factors [71.79984112148865]
  We introduce a method for ranking generative models based on the training dynamics exhibited during learning. Inspired by recent theoretical characterizations of disentanglement, our method does not require supervision of the underlying latent factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T17:27:29Z)
• Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensions [4.257210316104905]
  Automated decision systems are increasingly used to take consequential decisions in problems such as job hiring and loan granting. However, objective machine learning (ML) algorithms are prone to bias, which results in yet unfair decisions. This paper surveys the commonly used fairness notions and discusses the tensions among them with privacy and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-16T13:36:05Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• 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)
• Getting Fairness Right: Towards a Toolbox for Practitioners [2.4364387374267427]
  The potential risk of AI systems unintentionally embedding and reproducing bias has attracted the attention of machine learning practitioners and society at large. This paper proposes to draft a toolbox which helps practitioners to ensure fair AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-15T20:53:50Z)
• Fairness by Explicability and Adversarial SHAP Learning [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that emphasises the role of an external auditor and model explicability. We develop a framework for mitigating model bias using regularizations constructed from the SHAP values of an adversarial surrogate model. We demonstrate our approaches using gradient and adaptive boosting on: a synthetic dataset, the UCI Adult (Census) dataset and a real-world credit scoring dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-11T14:36:34Z)

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.