REVIEW 2 cited by
Prediction-Based Decisions and Fairness: A Catalogue of Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
A recent flurry of research activity has attempted to quantitatively define "fairness" for decisions based on statistical and machine learning (ML) predictions. The rapid growth of this new field has led to wildly inconsistent terminology and notation, presenting a serious challenge for cataloguing and comparing definitions. This paper attempts to bring much-needed order. First, we explicate the various choices and assumptions made---often implicitly---to justify the use of prediction-based decisions. Next, we show how such choices and assumptions can raise concerns about fairness and we present a notationally consistent catalogue of fairness definitions from the ML literature. In doing so, we offer a concise reference for thinking through the choices, assumptions, and fairness considerations of prediction-based decision systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants
Fairness auditing should target social determinants that carry structural injustice, because mitigating on sensitive attributes alone can create new harms.
-
Bias-Aware Mislabeling Detection via Decoupled Confident Learning
A per-group extension of Confident Learning detects mislabeled instances under group-dependent label noise and outperforms standard baselines on synthetic and hate speech data.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.