Abstract:Fairness measurement is crucial for assessing algorithmic bias in various types of machine learning (ML) models, including ones used for search relevance, recommendation, personalization, talent analytics, and natural language processing. However, the fairness measurement paradigm is currently dominated by fairness metrics that examine disparities in allocation and/or prediction error as univariate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a protected attribute or group. Although important and effective in assessing ML bias in certain contexts such as recidivism, existing metrics don’t work well in many real-world applications of ML characterized by imperfect models applied to an array of instances encompassing a multivariate mixture of protected attributes, that are part of a broader process pipeline. Consequently, the upstream representational harm quantified by existing metrics based on how the model represents protected groups doesn’t necessarily relate to allocational harm in the application of such models in downstream policy/decision contexts. We propose FAIR-Frame, a model-based framework for parsimoniously modeling fairness across multiple protected attributes in regard to the representational and allocational harm associated with the upstream design/development and downstream usage of ML models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed framework on two testbeds pertaining to text classification using pretrained language models. The upstream testbeds encompass over fifty thousand documents associated with twenty-eight thousand users, seven protected attributes and five different classification tasks. The downstream testbeds span three policy outcomes and over 5.41 million total observations. Results in comparison with several existing metrics show that the upstream representational harm measures produced by FAIR-Frame and other metrics are significantly different from one another, and that FAIR-Frame’s representational fairness measures have the highest percentage alignment and lowest error with allocational harm observed in downstream applications. Our findings have important implications for various ML contexts, including information retrieval, user modeling, digital platforms, and text classification, where responsible and trustworthy AI are becoming an imperative.

The Golden Rule as a Heuristic to Measure the Fairness of Texts Using Machine Learning

Measuring a Texts Fairness Dimensions Using Machine Learning Based on Social Psychological Factors

Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy

Are There Exceptions to Goodhart's Law? On the Moral Justification of Fairness-Aware Machine Learning

How is the AI Perceived when It Behaves (Un)fairly?

Should Fairness be a Metric or a Model? A Model-based Framework for Assessing Bias in Machine Learning Pipelines

The Fairness Field Guide: Perspectives from Social and Formal Sciences

What About Applied Fairness?

The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by default

Word vector embeddings hold social ontological relations capable of reflecting meaningful fairness assessments

Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning

Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness

The Impossibility of Fair LLMs

Developing a Philosophical Framework for Fair Machine Learning: Lessons From The Case of Algorithmic Collusion

Analyzing Fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing Models

Fairness: from the ethical principle to the practice of Machine Learning development as an ongoing agreement with stakeholders

Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback

What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds

The Man Behind the Curtain: Appropriating Fairness in AI

A novel approach for assessing fairness in deployed machine learning algorithms

Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches