Counterpart Fairness -- Addressing Systematic between-group Differences in Fairness Evaluation
When using machine learning to aid decision-making, it is critical to ensure that an algorithmic decision is fair and does not discriminate against specific individuals/groups, particularly those from underprivileged populations. Existing group fairness methods aim to ensure equal outcomes (such as loan approval rates) across groups delineated by protected variables like race or gender. However, in cases where systematic differences between groups play a significant role in outcomes, these methods may overlook the influence of non-protected variables that can systematically vary across groups. These confounding factors can affect fairness evaluations, making it challenging to assess whether disparities are due to discrimination or inherent differences. Therefore, we recommend a more refined and comprehensive fairness index that accounts for both the systematic differences within groups and the multifaceted, intertwined confounding effects. The proposed index evaluates fairness on counterparts (pairs of individuals who are similar with respect to the task of interest but from different groups), whose group identities cannot be distinguished algorithmically by exploring confounding factors. To identify counterparts, we developed a two-step matching method inspired by propensity score and metric learning. In addition, we introduced a counterpart-based statistical fairness index, called Counterpart Fairness (CFair), to assess the fairness of machine learning models. Empirical results on the MIMIC and COMPAS datasets indicate that standard group-based fairness metrics may not adequately inform about the degree of unfairness present in predictions, as revealed through CFair.
Code (1)
Tasks
Decision MakingFairnessMetric LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Unveiling Group-Specific Distributed Concept Drift: A Fairness Imperative in Federated Learning
In the evolving field of machine learning, ensuring fairness has become a critical concern, prompting the development of algorithms designed to mitigate discriminatory outcomes in decision-making processes. However, achi…
Decision MakingDrift DetectionFairnessFederated LearningQuantifying Social Biases in NLP: A Generalization and Empirical Comparison of Extrinsic Fairness Metrics
Measuring bias is key for better understanding and addressing unfairness in NLP/ML models. This is often done via fairness metrics which quantify the differences in a model's behaviour across a range of demographic group…
FairnessAddressing Fairness Issues in Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Analysis: A Systematic Review
Deep learning algorithms have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in various medical image analysis (MedIA) applications. However, recent research highlights a performance disparity in these algorithms when applied to speci…
FairnessMedical Image Analysisobject-detectionObject Detection+1Towards Clinical AI Fairness: Filling Gaps in the Puzzle
The ethical integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare necessitates addressing fairness-a concept that is highly context-specific across medical fields. Extensive studies have been conducted to expand the …
FairnessFairness of ChatGPT
Understanding and addressing unfairness in LLMs are crucial for responsible AI deployment. However, there is a limited number of quantitative analyses and in-depth studies regarding fairness evaluations in LLMs, especial…
Fairness