Abstract:A yet unmet challenge in algorithmic fairness is the problem of intersectionality, that is, achieving fairness across the intersection of multiple groups -- and verifying that such fairness has been attained. Because intersectional groups tend to be small, verifying whether a model is fair raises statistical as well as moral-methodological challenges. This paper (1) elucidates the problem of intersectionality in algorithmic fairness, (2) develops desiderata to clarify the challenges underlying the problem and guide the search for potential solutions, (3) illustrates the desiderata and potential solutions by sketching a proposal using simple hypothesis testing, and (4) evaluates, partly empirically, this proposal against the proposed desiderata.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper attempts to address the intersectionality problem in algorithmic fairness. Specifically, the authors focus on how to achieve and verify the fairness of algorithms on the intersections of multiple groups. Since intersectional groups are often small in size, this poses statistical and ethical methodological challenges in verifying whether the model is fair. ### Specific manifestations of the intersectionality problem 1. **Data scarcity**: As the number of attributes defining subgroups increases, the amount of data for each subgroup decreases rapidly. For example, for \(n\) binary attributes, there are \(2^n\) intersectional groups. This means that when social identities are formed by the intersections of multiple variables, the data within each intersection may be very scarce. 2. **Statistical uncertainty**: Small - sample data leads to an increase in the uncertainty of statistical estimates, making traditional fairness measures (such as point estimates) meaningless. For example, in a binary classification problem, if a group has only a few samples, then the accuracy rate of the model for this group is either 1 or 0, and such an estimate lacks practical significance. 3. **Ethical and methodological challenges**: Existing fairness measurement standards may "lower the fairness threshold" when dealing with intersectional groups, that is, relax the fairness requirements for smaller groups. This violates some basic ethical or methodological standards, such as minimal justice and consistent conceptualization. ### Main contributions of the paper 1. **Clarifying the intersectionality problem**: The authors describe in detail the challenges of the intersectionality problem to algorithmic fairness, especially how to define and verify fairness in the case of data scarcity. 2. **Proposing desiderata**: The authors propose several desiderata to clarify the ethical and methodological challenges behind the intersectionality problem and guide the exploration of potential solutions. These standards include: - **Minimal justice**: Ensure that the fairness standards are not lowered for historically discriminated or disadvantaged groups. - **Consistent conceptualization**: Ensure that the fairness measurement standards consistently operationalize a certain fairness concept. - **Incentive compatibility**: Ensure that the fairness measurement does not create negative incentives, such as hindering data collection or allowing "gaming the system". 3. **Statistical hypothesis - testing framework**: The authors show how to meet these desiderata through a simple hypothesis - testing framework and propose two different models - an optimistic model and a pessimistic model - to evaluate the fairness of the model. 4. **Empirical evaluation**: The authors partly evaluate the proposed hypothesis - testing framework through empirical research and verify its performance on different datasets. In conclusion, this paper aims to solve the intersectionality problem in algorithmic fairness, especially how to define and verify fairness in the case of data scarcity while ensuring that fairness measures meet basic ethical and methodological standards.

The Intersectionality Problem for Algorithmic Fairness

Intersectional Fairness: A Fractal Approach

Fair Without Leveling Down: A New Intersectional Fairness Definition

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

Evaluating Intersectional Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making Using Intersectional Differential Algorithmic Functioning

Auditing and Achieving Intersectional Fairness in Classification Problems

Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness

Algorithmic Fairness and Color-blind Racism: Navigating the Intersection

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Emergent Unfairness in Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Off Research

Testing the Fairness-Accuracy Improvability of Algorithms

Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy

Fairness in Algorithmic Recourse Through the Lens of Substantive Equality of Opportunity

What's Distributive Justice Got to Do with It? Rethinking Algorithmic Fairness from the Perspective of Approximate Justice

Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvements

A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challenges

Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learning

Towards a Critical Race Methodology in Algorithmic Fairness