Abstract:An implicit ambiguity in the field of prediction-based decision-making regards the relation between the concepts of prediction and decision. Much of the literature in the field tends to blur the boundaries between the two concepts and often simply speaks of 'fair prediction.' In this paper, we point out that a differentiation of these concepts is helpful when implementing algorithmic fairness. Even if fairness properties are related to the features of the used prediction model, what is more properly called 'fair' or 'unfair' is a decision system, not a prediction model. This is because fairness is about the consequences on human lives, created by a decision, not by a prediction. We clarify the distinction between the concepts of prediction and decision and show the different ways in which these two elements influence the final fairness properties of a prediction-based decision system. In addition to exploring this relationship conceptually and practically, we propose a framework that enables a better understanding and reasoning of the conceptual logic of creating fairness in prediction-based decision-making. In our framework, we specify different roles, namely the 'prediction-modeler' and the 'decision-maker,' and the information required from each of them for being able to implement fairness of the system. Our framework allows for deriving distinct responsibilities for both roles and discussing some insights related to ethical and legal requirements. Our contribution is twofold. First, we shift the focus from abstract algorithmic fairness to context-dependent decision-making, recognizing diverse actors with unique objectives and independent actions. Second, we provide a conceptual framework that can help structure prediction-based decision problems with respect to fairness issues, identify responsibilities, and implement fairness governance mechanisms in real-world scenarios.

People are not coins. Morally distinct types of predictions necessitate different fairness constraints

On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness

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

On Formalizing Fairness in Prediction with Machine Learning

On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More Than a Fair Prediction Model

Fair When Trained, Unfair When Deployed: Observable Fairness Measures are Unstable in Performative Prediction Settings

Group Fairness in Prediction-Based Decision Making: From Moral Assessment to Implementation

Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness

Prediction-Based Decisions and Fairness: A Catalogue of Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

Group Fairness Is Not Derivable From Justice: a Mathematical Proof

Is calibration a fairness requirement? An argument from the point of view of moral philosophy and decision theory

Distributive Justice as the Foundational Premise of Fair ML: Unification, Extension, and Interpretation of Group Fairness Metrics

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions

The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning

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

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

Where Is the Normative Proof? Assumptions and Contradictions in ML Fairness Research

Fairness in Machine Learning with Tractable Models

What's Sex Got To Do With Fair Machine Learning?

Testing Relative Fairness in Human Decisions With Machine Learning