Public Affairs Quarterly (forthcoming)

Authors
Clinton Castro
Florida International University
Abstract
A number of findings in the field of machine learning have given rise to questions about what it means for automated scoring- or decisionmaking systems to be fair. One center of gravity in this discussion is whether such systems ought to satisfy classification parity (which requires parity in accuracy across groups, defined by protected attributes) or calibration (which requires similar predictions to have similar meanings across groups, defined by protected attributes). Central to this discussion are impossibility results, owed to Kleinberg et al. (2016), Chouldechova (2017), and Corbett-Davies et al. (2017), which show that classification parity and calibration are often incompatible. This paper aims to argue that classification parity, calibration, and a newer, interesting measure called counterfactual fairness are unsatisfactory measures of fairness, offer a general diagnosis of the failure of these measures, and sketch an alternative approach to understanding fairness in machine learning.
Keywords Fair machine learning  Fairness  Bias
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

On Statistical Criteria of Algorithmic Fairness.Brian Hedden - 2021 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 49 (2):209-231.
Fairness.Brad Hooker - 2005 - In T. Hodnerich (ed.), Oxford companion to philosophy. 2nd edition. pp. 287-288.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness.Pak-Hang Wong - 2020 - Philosophy and Technology 33 (2):225-244.
On Algorithmic Fairness in Medical Practice.Thomas Grote & Geoff Keeling - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (1):83-94.
Non-Empirical Problems in Fair Machine Learning.Teresa Scantamburlo - 2021 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (4):703-712.
Algorithmic Fairness From a Non-Ideal Perspective.Sina Fazelpour & Zachary C. Lipton - 2020 - Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
Performance Vs. Competence in Human–Machine Comparisons.Chaz Firestone - 2020 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 41.
A Conceptual Framework Over Contextual Analysis of Concept Learning Within Human-Machine Interplays.Farshad Badie - 2017 - In Emerging Technologies for Education. Cham, Switzerland: pp. 65-74.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-02-13

Total views
92 ( #128,437 of 2,519,855 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
81 ( #9,299 of 2,519,855 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes