Abstract:In recent years fairness in machine learning (ML) has emerged as a highly active area of research and development. Most define fairness in simple terms, where fairness means reducing gaps in performance or outcomes between demographic groups while preserving as much of the accuracy of the original system as possible. This oversimplification of equality through fairness measures is troubling. Many current fairness measures suffer from both fairness and performance degradation, or "levelling down," where fairness is achieved by making every group worse off, or by bringing better performing groups down to the level of the worst off. When fairness can only be achieved by making everyone worse off in material or relational terms through injuries of stigma, loss of solidarity, unequal concern, and missed opportunities for substantive equality, something would appear to have gone wrong in translating the vague concept of 'fairness' into practice. This paper examines the causes and prevalence of levelling down across fairML, and explore possible justifications and criticisms based on philosophical and legal theories of equality and distributive justice, as well as equality law jurisprudence. We find that fairML does not currently engage in the type of measurement, reporting, or analysis necessary to justify levelling down in practice. We propose a first step towards substantive equality in fairML: "levelling up" systems by design through enforcement of minimum acceptable harm thresholds, or "minimum rate constraints," as fairness constraints. We likewise propose an alternative harms-based framework to counter the oversimplified egalitarian framing currently dominant in the field and push future discussion more towards substantive equality opportunities and away from strict egalitarianism by default. N.B. Shortened abstract, see paper for full abstract.

Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?

Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support

Assessing Perceived Fairness from Machine Learning Developer's Perspective

Navigating Fairness: Practitioners' Understanding, Challenges, and Strategies in AI/ML Development

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

Towards Integrating Fairness Transparently in Industrial Applications

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

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

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

Fairness Testing: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Trends

What About Applied Fairness?

Investigating Practices and Opportunities for Cross-functional Collaboration around AI Fairness in Industry Practice

Can Fairness be Automated? Guidelines and Opportunities for Fairness-aware AutoML

A Framework for Fairer Machine Learning in Organizations

Embed systemic equity throughout industrial ecology applications: How to address machine learning unfairness and bias

Analyzing Fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing Models

Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research

A novel approach for assessing fairness in deployed machine learning algorithms

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

A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning

The Fairness Field Guide: Perspectives from Social and Formal Sciences