Algorithmic Fairness in AI Surrogates for End-of-Life Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16056v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 21:45:24 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic Fairness in AI Surrogates for End-of-Life Decision-Making
• Authors: Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad,
• Abstract summary: Artificial intelligence surrogates are systems designed to infer preferences when individuals lose decision-making capacity.<n>Traditional algorithmic fairness frameworks are insufficient for contexts where decisions are relational, existential, and culturally diverse.<n>This paper explores an ethical framework for algorithmic fairness in AI surrogates by mapping major fairness notions onto potential real-world end-of-life scenarios.
• Score: 1.049126606580198
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence surrogates are systems designed to infer preferences when individuals lose decision-making capacity. Fairness in such systems is a domain that has been insufficiently explored. Traditional algorithmic fairness frameworks are insufficient for contexts where decisions are relational, existential, and culturally diverse. This paper explores an ethical framework for algorithmic fairness in AI surrogates by mapping major fairness notions onto potential real-world end-of-life scenarios. It then examines fairness across moral traditions. The authors argue that fairness in this domain extends beyond parity of outcomes to encompass moral representation, fidelity to the patient's values, relationships, and worldview.

Related papers

• (Unfair) Norms in Fairness Research: A Meta-Analysis [6.395584220342517]
  We conduct a meta-analysis of algorithmic fairness papers from two leading conferences on AI fairness and ethics. Our investigation reveals two concerning trends: first, a US-centric perspective dominates throughout fairness research. Second, fairness studies exhibit a widespread reliance on binary codifications of human identity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T17:14:47Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Fairness: Alternative Moral Dimensions for Assessing Algorithms and Designing Systems [14.956800147435615]
  We argue that there is an overreliance on fairness as a single dimension of morality, which comes at the expense of other important human values. We present five moral dimensions that go beyond fairness, and suggest three ways these alternative dimensions may contribute to ethical AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T19:54:11Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• 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)
• Explaining how your AI system is fair [3.723553383515688]
  We propose to use a decision tree as means to explain and justify the implemented kind of fairness to the end users. We argue that specifying "fairness" for a given use case is the best way forward to maintain confidence in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T07:52:56Z)
• 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)
• 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.