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.

On the Advantages of Distinguishing Between Predictive and Allocative Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

From fair predictions to just decisions? Conceptualizing algorithmic fairness and distributive justice in the context of data-driven decision-making

Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Parity

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

A Psychometric Framework for Evaluating Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Differential Algorithmic Functioning

On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions

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

Fair and Unbiased Algorithmic Decision Making: Current State and Future Challenges

Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiency

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

Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law

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

Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making

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

Bridging Machine Learning and Mechanism Design towards Algorithmic Fairness

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

Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination

Inference for an Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

Distributive Justice and Fairness Metrics in Automated Decision-making: How Much Overlap Is There?