research-article

Open access

What Should We Do when Our Ideas of Fairness Conflict?

Author:

Manish RaghavanAuthors Info & Claims

Communications of the ACM, Volume 67, Issue 1

Pages 88 - 97

https://doi.org/10.1145/3587930

Published: 21 December 2023 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Standards for fair decision making could help us develop algorithms that comport with our consensus views; however, algorithmic fairness has its limits.

References

[1]

Abebe, R. et al. Roles for computing in social change. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2020), 252--260.

Google Scholar

[2]

Angwin, J. and Larson, J. Bias in criminal risk scores is mathematically inevitable, researchers say. Ethics of Data and Analytics, Auerbach Publications (2016), 265--267.

Google Scholar

[3]

Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S. and Kirchner, L. Machine bias. Ethics of Data and Analytics, Auerbach Publications (2016), 254--264.

Google Scholar

[4]

Barabas, C. et al. Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2018), 62--76.

Google Scholar

[5]

Barocas, S., Hardt, M. and Narayanan, A. Fairness and Machine Learning (2019); http://www.fairmlbook.org.

Google Scholar

[6]

Berk, R. et al. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. In Proceedings of Sociological Methods & Research 50, 1 (Feb. 2021), 3--44.

Google Scholar

[7]

Blum, A. and Stangl, K. Recovering from biased data: Can fairness constraints improve accuracy? In Proceedings of the 1^st Symp. on Foundations of Responsible Computing 156 (2020), 3:1--3:20.

Google Scholar

[8]

Canetti, R. et al. From soft classifiers to hard decisions: How fair can we be? In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2019), 309--318.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

Celis, L.E., Huang, L., Keswani, V. and Vishnoi, N.K. Classification with fairness constraints: A meta-algorithm with provable guarantees. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2019), 319--328.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Chouldechova, A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. In Proceedings of Big Data 5, 2 (2017), 153--163.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[11]

Corbett-Davies, S. and Goel, S. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv (2018); http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00023.

Google Scholar

[12]

Dastin, J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In Ethics of Data and Analytics, Auerbach Publications (2018), 296--299.

Google Scholar

[13]

Davis, J.L., Williams, A. and Yang, M.W. Algorithmic reparation. In Proceedings of Big Data & Society 8, 2 (2021).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[14]

Dieterich, W., Mendoza, C. and Brennan, T. COMPAS risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity. Northpointe Inc. 7, 4 (2016).

Google Scholar

[15]

Donahue, K. and Kleinberg, J. Fairness and utilization in allocating resources with uncertain demand. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2020), 658--668.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Dwork, C. et al. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3^rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conf. (2012), 214--226.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Flores, A.W., Bechtel, K. and Lowenkamp, C.T. False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: A rejoinder to machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it's biased against blacks. Federal Probation J. 80, (2016), 38.

Google Scholar

[18]

Green, B. Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology 35, 90 (2022)

Crossref

Google Scholar

[19]

Gultchin, L. et al. Beyond Impossibility: Balancing Sufficiency, Separation and Accuracy (2022); http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12327.

Google Scholar

[20]

Harcourt, B.E. Against Prediction, University of Chicago Press (2008).

Google Scholar

[21]

Hardt, M., Price, E. and Srebro, N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, (2016).

Google Scholar

[22]

He, Y., Burghardt, K., Guo, S. and Lerman, K. Inherent trade-offs in the fair allocation of treatments. arXiv (2020); http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.16409.

Google Scholar

[23]

Hedden, B. On statistical criteria of algorithmic fairness. Philosophy and Public Affairs 49, 2 (2021).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[24]

Hellman, D. Measuring algorithmic fairness. Virginia Law Rev. 106, 4 (2020), 811--866.

Google Scholar

[25]

Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S. and Raghavan, M. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. In Proceedings of the 8^th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conf. (2017).

Google Scholar

[26]

Lechner, T., Ben-David, S., Agarwal, S. and Ananthakrishnan, N. Impossibility results for fair representations. arXiv (2021); http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03483.

Google Scholar

[27]

Loi, M. and Heitz, C. Is calibration a fairness requirement? An argument from the point of view of moral philosophy and decision theory. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2022), 2026--2034.

Google Scholar

[28]

Long, R. Fairness in machine learning: Against false positive rate equality as a measure of fairness. J. of Moral Philosophy 19, 1 (Nov. 2021), 49--78.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[29]

Madras, D., Pitassi, T. and Zemel, R. Predict responsibly: Improving fairness and accuracy by learning to defer. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2018).

Google Scholar

[30]

Mayson, S.G. Bias in, bias out. Yale Law J. 128, 8 (June 2019).

Google Scholar

[31]

Narayanan, A. Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics. In Proceedings of the Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1170, 3 (2022).

Google Scholar

[32]

Pleiss, G. et al. On fairness and calibration. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017).

Google Scholar

[33]

Powles, J. and Nissenbaum, H. The seductive diversion of 'solving' bias in artificial intelligence. OneZero, Medium (2018).

Google Scholar

[34]

Raghavan, M. The societal impacts of algorithmic decision-making. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University (2021).

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[35]

Rambachan, A., Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S. and Ludwig, J. An economic approach to regulating algorithms. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2020).

Google Scholar

[36]

Reich, C.L. and Vijaykumar, S. A possibility in algorithmic fairness: Can calibration and equal error rates be reconciled? In Foundations of Responsible Computing (2021).

Google Scholar

[37]

Richardson, R., Schultz, J.M. and Jacobson, S.E. Brief for amicus curiae AI Now Institute in support of petitioners. Philadelphia Community Bail Fund, et al. Pets v. Commonwealth Arraignment Ct., 21 EM 2019 (Pa. 2020).

Google Scholar

[38]

Skeem, J. and Lowenkamp, C. Using algorithms to address trade-offs inherent in predicting recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 38, 3 (2020), 259--278.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[39]

Srivastava, M., Heidari, H. and Krause, A. Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 25^th ACM SIGKDD Intern. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (2019), 2459--2468.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

Yu, B. et al. Keeping designers in the loop: Communicating inherent algorithmic trade-offs across multiple objectives. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conf. 1245--1257.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Cavique L(2024)Implications of causality in artificial intelligenceFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2024.14397027Online publication date: 21-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1439702
Somerstep SRitov YSun Y(2024)Algorithmic Fairness in Performative Policy Learning: Escaping the Impossibility of Group FairnessProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658929(616-630)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658929
Criscuolo CDolci T(2024)Exploring Fairness Interpretability with FairnessFriend: A Chatbot Solution2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW)10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00037(246-253)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00037

Index Terms

What Should We Do when Our Ideas of Fairness Conflict?

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Airtime Fairness for IEEE 802.11 Multirate Networks

Under a multi rate network scenario, the IEEE 802.11 DCF MAC fails to provide air-time fairness for all competing stations since the protocol is designed for ensuring max-min throughput fairness and the maximum achievable throughput by any station gets ...
Optimal CWmin selection for achieving proportional fairness in multi-rate 802.11e WLANs: test-bed implementation and evaluation
WiNTECH '06: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Wireless network testbeds, experimental evaluation & characterization

We investigate the optimal selection of minimum contention window values to achieve proportional fairness in a multirate IEEE 802.11e test-bed. Unlike other approaches, the proposed model accounts for the contention-based nature of 802.11's MAC layer ...
Achieving per-station fairness in IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs
WOWMOM '10: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM)

In this paper, we address the issue of per-station fairness in IEEE 802.11-based wireless local area networks (WLANs). Although the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) has been designed to provide a fair channel access for all competing ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Communications of the ACM Volume 67, Issue 1

January 2024

122 pages

EISSN:1557-7317

DOI:10.1145/3638509

Editor:
James Larus
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 December 2023

Published in CACM Volume 67, Issue 1

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
1,975
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1,201
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)172

Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Cavique L(2024)Implications of causality in artificial intelligenceFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2024.14397027Online publication date: 21-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1439702
Somerstep SRitov YSun Y(2024)Algorithmic Fairness in Performative Policy Learning: Escaping the Impossibility of Group FairnessProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658929(616-630)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658929
Criscuolo CDolci T(2024)Exploring Fairness Interpretability with FairnessFriend: A Chatbot Solution2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW)10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00037(246-253)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00037

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Digital Edition

View this article in digital edition.

Digital Edition

Magazine Site

View this article on the magazine site (external)

Magazine Site

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Airtime Fairness for IEEE 802.11 Multirate Networks

Optimal CWmin selection for achieving proportional fairness in multi-rate 802.11e WLANs: test-bed implementation and evaluation

Achieving per-station fairness in IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Digital Edition

Magazine Site

Login options

Full Access

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations