Effort-aware Fairness: Incorporating a Philosophy-informed, Human-centered Notion of Effort into Algorithmic Fairness Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19317v1
• Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 21:07:13 GMT
• Title: Effort-aware Fairness: Incorporating a Philosophy-informed, Human-centered Notion of Effort into Algorithmic Fairness Metrics
• Authors: Tin Nguyen, Jiannan Xu, Zora Che, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Rushil Dandamudi, Donald Braman, Furong Huang, Hal Daumé III, Zubin Jelveh,
• Abstract summary: We propose a philosophy-informed way to conceptualize and evaluate Effort-aware Fairness (EaF) based on the concept of Force.<n>Our work may enable AI model auditors to uncover and potentially correct unfair decisions against individuals who spent significant efforts to improve but are still stuck with systemic/early-life disadvantages outside their control.
• Score: 31.02504368168753
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Although popularized AI fairness metrics, e.g., demographic parity, have uncovered bias in AI-assisted decision-making outcomes, they do not consider how much effort one has spent to get to where one is today in the input feature space. However, the notion of effort is important in how Philosophy and humans understand fairness. We propose a philosophy-informed way to conceptualize and evaluate Effort-aware Fairness (EaF) based on the concept of Force, or temporal trajectory of predictive features coupled with inertia. In addition to our theoretical formulation of EaF metrics, our empirical contributions include: 1/ a pre-registered human subjects experiment, which demonstrates that for both stages of the (individual) fairness evaluation process, people consider the temporal trajectory of a predictive feature more than its aggregate value; 2/ pipelines to compute Effort-aware Individual/Group Fairness in the criminal justice and personal finance contexts. Our work may enable AI model auditors to uncover and potentially correct unfair decisions against individuals who spent significant efforts to improve but are still stuck with systemic/early-life disadvantages outside their control.

Related papers

• What Hides behind Unfairness? Exploring Dynamics Fairness in Reinforcement Learning [52.51430732904994]
  In reinforcement learning problems, agents must consider long-term fairness while maximizing returns. Recent works have proposed many different types of fairness notions, but how unfairness arises in RL problems remains unclear. We introduce a novel notion called dynamics fairness, which explicitly captures the inequality stemming from environmental dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T22:47:59Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Towards Fair and Explainable AI using a Human-Centered AI Approach [5.888646114353372]
  We present 5 research projects that aim to enhance explainability and fairness in classification systems and word embeddings. The first project explores the utility/downsides of introducing local model explanations as interfaces for machine teachers. The second project presents D-BIAS, a causality-based human-in-the-loop visual tool for identifying and mitigating social biases in datasets. The third project presents WordBias, a visual interactive tool that helps audit pre-trained static word embeddings for biases against groups. The fourth project presents DramatVis Personae, a visual analytics tool that helps identify social
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T21:08:55Z)
• The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning [0.0]
  We show that there is a trade-off between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes in any data setting where group disparities exist. We introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation to aid researchers and designers in understanding the relationship between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T10:07:12Z)
• Identifying, measuring, and mitigating individual unfairness for supervised learning models and application to credit risk models [3.818578543491318]
  We focus on identifying and mitigating individual unfairness in AI solutions. We also investigate the extent to which techniques for achieving individual fairness are effective at achieving group fairness. Some experimental results corresponding to the individual unfairness mitigation techniques are presented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T10:20:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Understanding Relations Between Perception of Fairness and Trust in Algorithmic Decision Making [8.795591344648294]
  We aim to understand the relationship between induced algorithmic fairness and its perception in humans. We also study how does induced algorithmic fairness affects user trust in algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T11:00:39Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)
• Statistical Equity: A Fairness Classification Objective [6.174903055136084]
  We propose a new fairness definition motivated by the principle of equity. We formalize our definition of fairness, and motivate it with its appropriate contexts. We perform multiple automatic and human evaluations to show the effectiveness of our definition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T23:19:38Z)
• On Consequentialism and Fairness [64.35872952140677]
  We provide a consequentialist critique of common definitions of fairness within machine learning. We conclude with a broader discussion of the issues of learning and randomization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-02T05:39:48Z)

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.