"I think this is fair'': Uncovering the Complexities of Stakeholder Decision-Making in AI Fairness Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17956v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:12:12 GMT
• Title: "I think this is fair'': Uncovering the Complexities of Stakeholder Decision-Making in AI Fairness Assessment
• Authors: Lin Luo, Yuri Nakao, Mathieu Chollet, Hiroya Inakoshi, Simone Stumpf,
• Abstract summary: We show that stakeholders' fairness decisions are more complex than typical AI expert practices.<n>Our results extend the understanding of how stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to AI fairness governance and mitigation.
• Score: 5.919313327612488
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Assessing fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) typically involves AI experts who select protected features, fairness metrics, and set fairness thresholds. However, little is known about how stakeholders, particularly those affected by AI outcomes but lacking AI expertise, assess fairness. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 30 stakeholders without AI expertise, representing potential decision subjects in a credit rating scenario, to examine how they assess fairness when placed in the role of deciding on features with priority, metrics, and thresholds. We reveal that stakeholders' fairness decisions are more complex than typical AI expert practices: they considered features far beyond legally protected features, tailored metrics for specific contexts, set diverse yet stricter fairness thresholds, and even preferred designing customized fairness. Our results extend the understanding of how stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to AI fairness governance and mitigation, underscoring the importance of incorporating stakeholders' nuanced fairness judgments.

Related papers

• Empowering Affected Individuals to Shape AI Fairness Assessments: Processes, Criteria, and Tools [5.72357951997548]
  Existing fairness assessments are typically conducted by AI experts or regulators using protected attributes and metrics.<n>Recent work has called for involving affected individuals in fairness assessment, yet little empirical evidence exists on how they create their own fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T12:51:01Z)
• Disclosure and Evaluation as Fairness Interventions for General-Purpose AI [16.220252808413086]
  We argue that while we cannot be prescriptive about what constitutes fair outcomes, we can specify the processes that different stakeholders should follow in service of fairness.<n>We consider the obligations of two major groups: system providers and system deployers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T19:00:42Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• The Value of AI Advice: Personalized and Value-Maximizing AI Advisors Are Necessary to Reliably Benefit Experts and Organizations [8.434663608756253]
  Despite advances in AI's performance, AI advisors can undermine experts' decisions and increase the time and effort experts must invest to make decisions.<n>We stress the importance of assessing the value AI advice brings to real-world contexts when designing and evaluating AI advisors.<n>Our results highlight the need for system-level, value-driven development of AI advisors that advise selectively, are tailored to experts' unique behaviors, and are optimized for context-specific trade-offs between decision improvements and advising costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T08:50:54Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders [5.216732191267959]
  We propose a new framework, EARN Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise.<n>The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection.<n>Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework enables stakeholders to express personal preferences and reach consensus, providing practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T07:20:30Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [17.812295963158714]
  We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• 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)
• Human-in-the-loop Fairness: Integrating Stakeholder Feedback to Incorporate Fairness Perspectives in Responsible AI [4.0247545547103325]
  Fairness is a growing concern for high-risk decision-making using Artificial Intelligence (AI) There is no universally accepted fairness measure, fairness is context-dependent, and there might be conflicting perspectives on what is considered fair. Our work follows an approach where stakeholders can give feedback on specific decision instances and their outcomes with respect to their fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T11:17:29Z)
• 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)
• How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI [75.40051547428592]
  Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible AI technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T14:39:37Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.