Am I Being Treated Fairly? A Conceptual Framework for Individuals to Ascertain Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02461v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 10:28:19 GMT
• Title: Am I Being Treated Fairly? A Conceptual Framework for Individuals to Ascertain Fairness
• Authors: Juliett Suárez Ferreira, Marija Slavkovik, Jorge Casillas,
• Abstract summary: We argue for the reification of fairness as a property of Automatic Decision Making (ADM) systems.<n>We propose a conceptual framework to ascertain fairness by combining different tools that empower the end-users of ADM systems.
• Score: 0.7783262415147651
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Current fairness metrics and mitigation techniques provide tools for practitioners to asses how non-discriminatory Automatic Decision Making (ADM) systems are. What if I, as an individual facing a decision taken by an ADM system, would like to know: Am I being treated fairly? We explore how to create the affordance for users to be able to ask this question of ADM. In this paper, we argue for the reification of fairness not only as a property of ADM, but also as an epistemic right of an individual to acquire information about the decisions that affect them and use that information to contest and seek effective redress against those decisions, in case they are proven to be discriminatory. We examine key concepts from existing research not only in algorithmic fairness but also in explainable artificial intelligence, accountability, and contestability. Integrating notions from these domains, we propose a conceptual framework to ascertain fairness by combining different tools that empower the end-users of ADM systems. Our framework shifts the focus from technical solutions aimed at practitioners to mechanisms that enable individuals to understand, challenge, and verify the fairness of decisions, and also serves as a blueprint for organizations and policymakers, bridging the gap between technical requirements and practical, user-centered accountability.

Related papers

• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• AI Fairness in Practice [0.46671368497079174]
  There is a broad spectrum of views across society on what the concept of fairness means and how it should be put to practice. This workbook explores how a context-based approach to understanding AI Fairness can help project teams better identify, mitigate, and manage the many ways that unfair bias and discrimination can crop up across the AI project workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T23:02:56Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systems [5.076419064097733]
  This paper proposes a new equal confusion fairness test to check an automated decision system for fairness and a new confusion parity error to quantify the extent of any unfairness. Overall, the methods and metrics provided here may assess automated decision systems' fairness as part of a more extensive accountability assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-02T04:44:19Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• 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)
• Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems [1.7403133838762448]
  This paper introduces reviewability as a framework for improving the accountability of automated and algorithmic decision-making (ADM) We draw on an understanding of ADM as a socio-technical process involving both human and technical elements, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. We argue that a reviewability framework, drawing on administrative law's approach to reviewing human decision-making, offers a practical way forward towards more a more holistic and legally-relevant form of accountability for ADM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-26T18:15:34Z)
• End-to-End Learning and Intervention in Games [60.41921763076017]
  We provide a unified framework for learning and intervention in games. We propose two approaches, respectively based on explicit and implicit differentiation. The analytical results are validated using several real-world problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T18:39:32Z)
• Contestable Black Boxes [10.552465253379134]
  This paper investigates the type of assurances that are needed in the contesting process when algorithmic black-boxes are involved. We argue that specialised complementary methodologies to evaluate automated decision-making in the case of a particular decision being contested need to be developed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-09T09:09:00Z)
• 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)

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.