Fairness through Difference Awareness: Measuring Desired Group Discrimination in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01926v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 01:56:28 GMT
• Title: Fairness through Difference Awareness: Measuring Desired Group Discrimination in LLMs
• Authors: Angelina Wang, Michelle Phan, Daniel E. Ho, Sanmi Koyejo,
• Abstract summary: We argue that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. We present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions. We show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension of fairness.
• Score: 17.424396781457975
• License:
• Abstract: Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted a perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). We contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., calling a girl a terrorist may be less harmful than calling a Muslim person one). In our work we first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires distinct interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension of fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

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)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Intersectionality and Testimonial Injustice in Medical Records [10.06051533333397]
  We use real-world medical data to determine whether medical records exhibit words that could lead to testimonial injustice. We analyze how the intersectionality of demographic features (e.g. gender and race) make a difference in uncovering testimonial injustice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T17:22:50Z)
• 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)
• RankCSE: Unsupervised Sentence Representations Learning via Learning to Rank [54.854714257687334]
  We propose a novel approach, RankCSE, for unsupervised sentence representation learning. It incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. An extensive set of experiments are conducted on both semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T08:27:07Z)
• Fair Without Leveling Down: A New Intersectional Fairness Definition [1.0958014189747356]
  We propose a new definition called the $alpha$-Intersectional Fairness, which combines the absolute and the relative performance across sensitive groups. We benchmark multiple popular in-processing fair machine learning approaches using our new fairness definition and show that they do not achieve any improvement over a simple baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T16:15:12Z)
• Multi-dimensional discrimination in Law and Machine Learning -- A comparative overview [14.650860450187793]
  Domain of fairness-aware machine learning focuses on methods and algorithms for understanding, mitigating, and accounting for bias in AI/ML models. In reality, human identities are multi-dimensional, and discrimination can occur based on more than one protected characteristic. Recent approaches in this direction mainly follow the so-called intersectional fairness definition from the legal domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T20:41:58Z)
• 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 for Image Generation with Uncertain Sensitive Attributes [97.81354305427871]
  This work tackles the issue of fairness in the context of generative procedures, such as image super-resolution. While traditional group fairness definitions are typically defined with respect to specified protected groups, we emphasize that there are no ground truth identities. We show that the natural extension of demographic parity is strongly dependent on the grouping, and emphimpossible to achieve obliviously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T06:17:17Z)
• 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)
• Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisons [0.0]
  We discuss why fairness metrics need to be looked at under the lens of intersectionality. We suggest a simple worst case comparison method to expand the definitions of existing group fairness metrics. We conclude with the social, legal and political framework to handle intersectional fairness in the modern context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-05T17:44:33Z)

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.