Abstract:Fairness metrics are used to assess discrimination and bias in decision-making processes across various domains, including machine learning models and human decision-makers in real-world applications. This involves calculating the disparities between probabilistic outcomes among social groups, such as acceptance rates between male and female applicants. However, traditional fairness metrics do not account for the uncertainty in these processes and lack of comparability when two decision-makers exhibit the same disparity. Using Bayesian statistics, we quantify the uncertainty of the disparity to enhance discrimination assessments. We represent each decision-maker, whether a machine learning model or a human, by its disparity and the corresponding uncertainty in that disparity. We define preferences over decision-makers and utilize brute-force to choose the optimal decision-maker according to a utility function that ranks decision-makers based on these preferences. The decision-maker with the highest utility score can be interpreted as the one for whom we are most certain that it is fair.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve
The paper aims to address two main issues with traditional fairness metrics in evaluating discrimination and bias in decision-making processes:
1. **Uncertainty Issue**: Traditional fairness metrics do not account for the inherent uncertainty in the decision-making process (e.g., small sample problems due to data sparsity). This uncertainty can lead to inaccurate assessments of the decision-maker's fairness.
2. **Comparability Issue**: When two decision-makers exhibit the same disparity, traditional methods cannot effectively compare their fairness. For example, two companies have the same acceptance rate for different social groups in the hiring process, but one company receives fewer applications, making its decision-making uncertainty higher.
### Solution
To address the above issues, the authors propose a Bayesian statistical method to quantify and evaluate the unfairness and uncertainty of decision-makers. The specific steps are as follows:
1. **Quantify Uncertainty**: Using Bayesian statistical methods, calculate the disparity and corresponding uncertainty of each decision-maker when dealing with different social groups. This includes using the variance of the posterior distribution to describe uncertainty.
2. **Define Preference Relations**: Based on the disparity and uncertainty of decision-makers, define preference relations. For example, a decision-maker who is certainly fair is preferred over one who is uncertainly fair, and a decision-maker who is uncertainly unfair is preferred over one who is certainly unfair.
3. **Select the Optimal Decision-Maker**: By defining a utility function, map each decision-maker to a numerical value, allowing for ranking and selection of decision-makers. The design of the utility function ensures that the above preference relations are satisfied and can handle decision-makers within a continuous range.
### Specific Methods
- **Bayesian Treatment Probability Estimation**: Use Bayesian methods to estimate the treatment probability of each social group under specific events, quantifying uncertainty through the posterior distribution.
- **Definition of Disparity and Uncertainty**: Define Bayesian disparity and uncertainty, where disparity is the absolute difference in posterior expectations between two groups, and uncertainty is the normalized average of the posterior distribution variance.
- **Utility Function**: Define a utility function that converts the disparity and uncertainty of decision-makers into a numerical value for ranking and selecting the optimal decision-maker.
### Experimental Validation
The authors conducted experiments using synthetic data and real-world datasets to validate the effectiveness and practicality of the proposed method. The experimental results show that the method can more accurately assess and select fair decision-makers while considering uncertainty.
### Conclusion
By introducing Bayesian statistical methods, the paper successfully addresses the uncertainty and comparability issues in traditional fairness metrics, providing new ideas and tools for evaluating and selecting fair decision-makers.