An increasing number of decisions regarding the daily lives of human beings are being controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in spheres ranging from healthcare, transportation, and education to college admissions, recruitment, provision of loans and many more realms. Since they now touch on many aspects of our lives, it is crucial to develop AI algorithms that are not only accurate but also objective and fair. Recent studies have shown that algorithmic decision-making may be inherently prone to unfairness, even when there is no intention for it. This paper presents an overview of the main concepts of identifying, measuring and improving algorithmic fairness when using AI algorithms. The paper begins by discussing the causes of algorithmic bias and unfairness and the common definitions and measures for fairness. Fairness-enhancing mechanisms are then reviewed and divided into pre-process, in-process and post-process mechanisms. A comprehensive comparison of the mechanisms is then conducted, towards a better understanding of which mechanisms should be used in different scenarios. The paper then describes the most commonly used fairness-related datasets in this field. Finally, the paper ends by reviewing several emerging research sub-fields of algorithmic fairness.
Algorithmic fairness has been framed as a newly emerging technology that mitigates systemic discrimination in automated decision-making, providing opportunities to improve fairness in information systems (IS). However, based on a state-of-the-art literature review, we argue that fairness is an inherently social concept and that technologies for algorithmic fairness should therefore be approached through a sociotechnical lens. We advance the discourse on algorithmic fairness as a sociotechnical phenomenon. Our research objective is to embed AF in the sociotechnical view of IS. Specifically, we …
University of Michigan（密歇根大学）；Princeton University（普林斯顿大学）；Claudius Legal Intelligence（克劳迪乌斯法律智能公司）
The need to address representation biases and sentencing disparities in legal case data has long been recognized. Here, we study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness perspective. Our approach utilizes two regression models: A baseline that represents the decisions of a "typical" judge as given by the data and a "fair" judge that applies one of three fairness concepts. Comparing the decisions of the "typical" judge and the "fair" judge allows for quantifying biases across demographic groups, as we demonstrate in four case st…
Data-driven predictive models are increasingly used in education to support students, instructors, and administrators. However, there are concerns about the fairness of the predictions and uses of these algorithmic systems. In this introduction to algorithmic fairness in education, we draw parallels to prior literature on educational access, bias, and discrimination, and we examine core components of algorithmic systems (measurement, model learning, and action) to identify sources of bias and discrimination in the process of developing and deploying these systems. Statistical, similarity-based…
Algorithmic Fairness in AI Surrogates for End-of-Life Decision-Making
The Department of Computing & Software Systems University of Washington Bothell Harborview Medical Center, UW Medicine（计算与软件系统系华盛顿大学Bothell分校哈佛湾医疗中心，华盛顿大学医学部）
针对临终决策 AI 替代者，本文将主要公平概念映射到现实临终场景并跨道德传统考察，提出公平应包含道德代表性及对患者价值观、关系与世界观的忠实。
Conventional algorithmic fairness is West-centric, as seen in its sub-groups, values, and methods. In this paper, we de-center algorithmic fairness and analyse AI power in India. Based on 36 qualitative interviews and a discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments in India, we find that several assumptions of algorithmic fairness are challenged. We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration. We contend that localising model fairness alone can be window dressing in India, whe…
RWTH Aachen University（亚琛工业大学）；GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences（GESIS - 莱布尼茨社会科学研究所）
Measures of algorithmic fairness often do not account for human perceptions of fairness that can substantially vary between different sociodemographics and stakeholders. The FairCeptron framework is an approach for studying perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making such as in ranking or classification. It supports (i) studying human perceptions of fairness and (ii) comparing these human perceptions with measures of algorithmic fairness. The framework includes fairness scenario generation, fairness perception elicitation and fairness perception analysis. We demonstrate the FairCept…
University of Michigan（密歇根大学）；University of Konstanz（康斯坦茨大学）；IBM Research（IBM研究院）；Princeton University（普林斯顿大学）；Stanford University（斯坦福大学）
Many instances of algorithmic bias are caused by distributional shifts. For example, machine learning (ML) models often perform worse on demographic groups that are underrepresented in the training data. In this paper, we leverage this connection between algorithmic fairness and distribution shifts to show that algorithmic fairness interventions can help ML models overcome distribution shifts, and that domain adaptation methods (for overcoming distribution shifts) can mitigate algorithmic biases. In particular, we show that (i) enforcing suitable notions of individual fairness (IF) can improve…
New York University（纽约大学）；Surveillance Technology Oversight Project（监控技术监督项目）
In this work we use Equal Oppportunity (EO) doctrines from political philosophy to make explicit the normative judgements embedded in different conceptions of algorithmic fairness. We contrast formal EO approaches that narrowly focus on fair contests at discrete decision points, with substantive EO doctrines that look at people's fair life chances more holistically over the course of a lifetime. We use this taxonomy to provide a moral interpretation of the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different conceptions of a fair contest -- foward-looking versus backward-looking -- w…
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University（德克萨斯农工大学计算机科学与工程系）；Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University（德克萨斯农工大学工业与系统工程系）
Deep learning is increasingly being used in high-stake decision making applications that affect individual lives. However, deep learning models might exhibit algorithmic discrimination behaviors with respect to protected groups, potentially posing negative impacts on individuals and society. Therefore, fairness in deep learning has attracted tremendous attention recently. We provide a review covering recent progresses to tackle algorithmic fairness problems of deep learning from the computational perspective. Specifically, we show that interpretability can serve as a useful ingredient to diagn…
Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems（马克斯·普朗克智能系统研究所）；University of Cambridge（剑桥大学）；Saarland University（萨尔大学）；The Alan Turing Institute（艾伦·图灵研究所）
Algorithmic fairness is typically studied from the perspective of predictions. Instead, here we investigate fairness from the perspective of recourse actions suggested to individuals to remedy an unfavourable classification. We propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level, which -- unlike prior work on equalising the average group-wise distance from the decision boundary -- explicitly account for causal relationships between features, thereby capturing downstream effects of recourse actions performed in the physical world. We explore how our criteria relate to others, su…
University of Bristol（布里斯托尔大学）；RMIT University（皇家墨尔本理工大学）
Today, artificial intelligence systems driven by machine learning algorithms can be in a position to take important, and sometimes legally binding, decisions about our everyday lives. In many cases, however, these systems and their actions are neither regulated nor certified. To help counter the potential harm that such algorithms can cause we developed an open source toolbox that can analyse selected fairness, accountability and transparency aspects of the machine learning process: data (and their features), models and predictions, allowing to automatically and objectively report them to rele…
University of Southern California（南加利福尼亚大学）；Harvard University（哈佛大学）；University of California, Santa Cruz（加利福尼亚大学圣克鲁兹分校）
What is the best way to define algorithmic fairness? While many definitions of fairness have been proposed in the computer science literature, there is no clear agreement over a particular definition. In this work, we investigate ordinary people's perceptions of three of these fairness definitions. Across two online experiments, we test which definitions people perceive to be the fairest in the context of loan decisions, and whether fairness perceptions change with the addition of sensitive information (i.e., race of the loan applicants). Overall, one definition (calibrated fairness) tends to …
Across machine learning (ML) sub-disciplines, researchers make explicit mathematical assumptions in order to facilitate proof-writing. We note that, specifically in the area of fairness-accuracy trade-off optimization scholarship, similar attention is not paid to the normative assumptions that ground this approach. Such assumptions presume that 1) accuracy and fairness are in inherent opposition to one another, 2) strict notions of mathematical equality can adequately model fairness, 3) it is possible to measure the accuracy and fairness of decisions independent from historical context, and 4)…
Most proposed algorithmic fairness techniques require access to data on a "sensitive attribute" or "protected category" (such as race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality) in order to make performance comparisons and standardizations across groups, however this data is largely unavailable in practice, hindering the widespread adoption of algorithmic fairness. Through this paper, we consider calls to collect more data on demographics to enable algorithmic fairness and challenge the notion that discrimination can be overcome with smart enough technical methods and sufficient data alone. We show how …
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf（海因里希·海涅杜塞尔多夫大学）
Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) increasingly shapes people's daily lives. Given that such autonomous systems can cause severe harm to individuals and social groups, fairness concerns have arisen. A human-centric approach demanded by scholars and policymakers requires taking people's fairness perceptions into account when designing and implementing ADM. We provide a comprehensive, systematic literature review synthesizing the existing empirical insights on perceptions of algorithmic fairness from 39 empirical studies spanning multiple domains and scientific disciplines. Through thorough codin…
New York University（纽约大学）；University of Surrey（萨里大学）；Alan Turing Institute（艾伦图灵研究所）；University of Warwick（华威大学）；University College London（伦敦大学学院）
In this work, we argue for the importance of causal reasoning in creating fair algorithms for decision making. We give a review of existing approaches to fairness, describe work in causality necessary for the understanding of causal approaches, argue why causality is necessary for any approach that wishes to be fair, and give a detailed analysis of the many recent approaches to causality-based fairness.
National University of Singapore（新加坡国立大学）；Univ. Lille（里尔大学）；Inria（法国国家信息与自动化研究所）；CNRS（法国国家科学研究中心）；Centrale Lille（里尔中央理工学院）
In recent years, machine learning (ML) algorithms have been deployed in safety-critical and high-stake decision-making, where the fairness of algorithms is of paramount importance. Fairness in ML centers on detecting bias towards certain demographic populations induced by an ML classifier and proposes algorithmic solutions to mitigate the bias with respect to different fairness definitions. To this end, several fairness verifiers have been proposed that compute the bias in the prediction of an ML classifier--essentially beyond a finite dataset--given the probability distribution of input featu…
MPI-SWS（马克斯·普朗克软件系统研究所）；Saarland University（萨尔兰大学）；University of Maryland（马里兰大学）；Cambridge University（剑桥大学）；Alan Turing Institute（艾伦·图灵研究所）
As algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism, concerns have been raised about the fairness of algorithmic decision making. Most prior works on algorithmic fairness normatively prescribe how fair decisions ought to be made. In contrast, here, we descriptively survey users for how they perceive and reason about fairness in algorithmic decision making. A key contribution of this work is the framework we propose to understand why people perceive certain features as fair or u…
Algorithmic fairness and privacy are essential pillars of trustworthy machine learning. Fair machine learning aims at minimizing discrimination against protected groups by, for example, imposing a constraint on models to equalize their behavior across different groups. This can subsequently change the influence of training data points on the fair model, in a disproportionate way. We study how this can change the information leakage of the model about its training data. We analyze the privacy risks of group fairness (e.g., equalized odds) through the lens of membership inference attacks: inferr…
University of Southern California（南加州大学）；Information Sciences Institute（信息科学研究所）
Algorithmic fairness has attracted significant attention in recent years, with many quantitative measures suggested for characterizing the fairness of different machine learning algorithms. Despite this interest, the robustness of those fairness measures with respect to an intentional adversarial attack has not been properly addressed. Indeed, most adversarial machine learning has focused on the impact of malicious attacks on the accuracy of the system, without any regard to the system's fairness. We propose new types of data poisoning attacks where an adversary intentionally targets the fairn…
Cohort Shapley value is a model-free method of variable importance grounded in game theory that does not use any unobserved and potentially impossible feature combinations. We use it to evaluate algorithmic fairness, using the well known COMPAS recidivism data as our example. This approach allows one to identify for each individual in a data set the extent to which they were adversely or beneficially affected by their value of a protected attribute such as their race. The method can do this even if race was not one of the original predictors and even if it does not have access to a proprietary…
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research（斯坦福生物医学信息学研究中心）；Stanford University（斯坦福大学）
A growing body of work uses the paradigm of algorithmic fairness to frame the development of techniques to anticipate and proactively mitigate the introduction or exacerbation of health inequities that may follow from the use of model-guided decision-making. We evaluate the interplay between measures of model performance, fairness, and the expected utility of decision-making to offer practical recommendations for the operationalization of algorithmic fairness principles for the development and evaluation of predictive models in healthcare. We conduct an empirical case-study via development of …
DeepMind；Centre for Artificial Intelligence, University College London（伦敦大学学院人工智能中心）
Advances in algorithmic fairness have largely omitted sexual orientation and gender identity. We explore queer concerns in privacy, censorship, language, online safety, health, and employment to study the positive and negative effects of artificial intelligence on queer communities. These issues underscore the need for new directions in fairness research that take into account a multiplicity of considerations, from privacy preservation, context sensitivity and process fairness, to an awareness of sociotechnical impact and the increasingly important role of inclusive and participatory research …
Universitat Pomepu Fabra（庞培法布拉大学）；Università degli Studi di Cagliari（卡利亚里大学）
Research in adversarial machine learning has shown how the performance of machine learning models can be seriously compromised by injecting even a small fraction of poisoning points into the training data. While the effects on model accuracy of such poisoning attacks have been widely studied, their potential effects on other model performance metrics remain to be evaluated. In this work, we introduce an optimization framework for poisoning attacks against algorithmic fairness, and develop a gradient-based poisoning attack aimed at introducing classification disparities among different groups i…
University of Chicago（芝加哥大学）；IBM Research AI（IBM研究院人工智能部门）
The use of machine learning (ML) in high-stakes societal decisions has encouraged the consideration of fairness throughout the ML lifecycle. Although data integration is one of the primary steps to generate high quality training data, most of the fairness literature ignores this stage. In this work, we consider fairness in the integration component of data management, aiming to identify features that improve prediction without adding any bias to the dataset. We work under the causal interventional fairness paradigm. Without requiring the underlying structural causal model a priori, we propose …
Increasingly, discrimination by algorithms is perceived as a societal and legal problem. As a response, a number of criteria for implementing algorithmic fairness in machine learning have been developed in the literature. This paper proposes the Continuous Fairness Algorithm (CFA$θ$) which enables a continuous interpolation between different fairness definitions. More specifically, we make three main contributions to the existing literature. First, our approach allows the decision maker to continuously vary between specific concepts of individual and group fairness. As a consequence, the algor…
Rethinking Algorithmic Fairness for Human-AI Collaboration
Wharton AI & Analytics Initiative, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania（沃顿商学院人工智能与分析倡议，沃顿商学院，宾夕法尼亚大学）；Department of Operations, Information, and Decisions, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania（运营、信息与决策系，沃顿商学院，宾夕法尼亚大学）；Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania（计算机与信息科学系，宾夕法尼亚大学）
Equity of educational outcome and fairness of AI with respect to race have been topics of increasing importance in education. In this work, we address both with empirical evaluations of grade prediction in higher education, an important task to improve curriculum design, plan interventions for academic support, and offer course guidance to students. With fairness as the aim, we trial several strategies for both label and instance balancing to attempt to minimize differences in algorithm performance with respect to race. We find that an adversarial learning approach, combined with grade label b…
As more researchers have become aware of and passionate about algorithmic fairness, there has been an explosion in papers laying out new metrics, suggesting algorithms to address issues, and calling attention to issues in existing applications of machine learning. This research has greatly expanded our understanding of the concerns and challenges in deploying machine learning, but there has been much less work in seeing how the rubber meets the road. In this paper we provide a case-study on the application of fairness in machine learning research to a production classification system, and offe…
The Neutrality Fallacy: When Algorithmic Fairness Interventions are (Not) Positive Action
Eindhoven University of Technology（埃因霍温理工大学）；Sciences Po Law School（巴黎政治学院法学院）；Université Paris-Saclay（巴黎萨克雷大学）；University of Copenhagen（哥本哈根大学）；IEA-Paris（巴黎经济合作协会）
ETH Zürich（苏黎世联邦理工学院）；University of Zürich（苏黎世大学）；MPI-SWS（马克斯·普朗克软件系统研究所）
We map the recently proposed notions of algorithmic fairness to economic models of Equality of opportunity (EOP)---an extensively studied ideal of fairness in political philosophy. We formally show that through our conceptual mapping, many existing definition of algorithmic fairness, such as predictive value parity and equality of odds, can be interpreted as special cases of EOP. In this respect, our work serves as a unifying moral framework for understanding existing notions of algorithmic fairness. Most importantly, this framework allows us to explicitly spell out the moral assumptions under…
Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS)（俄勒冈州人类服务部（ODHS））；Office of Reporting, Research, Analytics, and Implementation (ORRAI)（报告、研究、分析和实施办公室（ORRAI））
The algorithmic fairness of predictive analytic tools in the public sector has increasingly become a topic of rigorous exploration. While instruments pertaining to criminal recidivism and academic admissions, for example, have garnered much attention, the predictive instruments of Child Welfare jurisdictions have received considerably less attention. This is in part because comparatively few such instruments exist and because even fewer have been scrutinized through the lens of algorithmic fairness. In this work, we seek to address both of these gaps. To this end, a novel classification algori…
University of Michigan（密歇根大学）；IBM Research（IBM研究院）；MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab（麻省理工学院-IBM沃森人工智能实验室）
Many instances of algorithmic bias are caused by subpopulation shifts. For example, ML models often perform worse on demographic groups that are underrepresented in the training data. In this paper, we study whether enforcing algorithmic fairness during training improves the performance of the trained model in the \emph{target domain}. On one hand, we conceive scenarios in which enforcing fairness does not improve performance in the target domain. In fact, it may even harm performance. On the other hand, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which enforcing algorithmic fairness l…
Imputation Strategies Under Clinical Presence: Impact on Algorithmic Fairness
MRC Biostatistics Unit（MRC生物统计学单元）；University of Cambridge（剑桥大学）；The Alan Turing Institute（阿兰·图灵研究所）；McCombs School of Business（麦库姆斯商学院）；University of Texas at Austin（德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校）；Rady School of Management（雷迪管理学院）；University of California, San Diego（加利福尼亚大学圣迭戈分校）
Florida International University（佛罗里达国际大学）；Carnegie Mellon University（卡内基梅隆大学）；University of Mississippi（密西西比大学）；National Institutes of Health（美国国立卫生研究院）
The McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin（德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校麦库姆斯商学院）；LMU Munich（慕尼黑大学）
The extensive adoption of business analytics (BA) has brought financial gains and increased efficiencies. However, these advances have simultaneously drawn attention to rising legal and ethical challenges when BA inform decisions with fairness implications. As a response to these concerns, the emerging study of algorithmic fairness deals with algorithmic outputs that may result in disparate outcomes or other forms of injustices for subgroups of the population, especially those who have been historically marginalized. Fairness is relevant on the basis of legal compliance, social responsibility,…
Decision makers increasingly rely on algorithmic risk scores to determine access to binary treatments including bail, loans, and medical interventions. In these settings, we reconcile two fairness criteria that were previously shown to be in conflict: calibration and error rate equality. In particular, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of calibrated scores that yield classifications achieving equal error rates at any given group-blind threshold. We then present an algorithm that searches for the most accurate score subject to both calibration and minimal error rat…
Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey
Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy（安全与隐私研究所）；Radboud University（拉德博德大学）；Eindhoven University of Technology（埃因霍温理工大学）；Randstad（Randstad公司）；European University Viadrina（弗赖堡大学）
