The Equity Framework: Fairness Beyond Equalized Predictive Outcomes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine Learning (ML) decision-making algorithms are now widely used in predictive decision-making, for example, to determine who to admit and give a loan. Their wide usage and consequential effects on individuals led the ML community to question and raise concerns on how the algorithms differently affect different people and communities. In this paper, we study fairness issues that arise when decision-makers use models (proxy models) that deviate from the models that depict the physical and social environment in which the decisions are situated (intended models). We also highlight the effect of obstacles on individual access and utilization of the models. To this end, we formulate an Equity Framework that considers equal access to the model, equal outcomes from the model, and equal utilization of the model, and consequentially achieves equity and higher social welfare than current fairness notions that aim for equality. We show how the three main aspects of the framework are connected and provide an equity scoring algorithm and questions to guide decision-makers towards equitable decision-making. We show how failure to consider access, outcome, and utilization would exacerbate proxy gaps leading to an infinite inequity loop that reinforces structural inequities through inaccurate and incomplete ground truth curation. We, therefore, recommend a more critical look at the model design and its effect on equity and a shift towards equity achieving predictive decision-making models.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2022.
Builds on
30 of 73 references.
References · 30
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
- 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
- 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 192
18 more
- 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
- 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 126
- 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
- 2017Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policingcited by 97
- 2019Strategic Classification is Causal Modeling in Disguisecited by 92
- 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 82
- 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
- 2020Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notionscited by 53
- 2020The Strategic Perceptroncited by 48
- 2018Fairness Under Compositioncited by 43
- 2018Fairness Through Causal Awareness: Learning Latent-Variable Models for Biased Datacited by 39
- 2019The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confoundingcited by 35
- 2018Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 29
- 2020Interventions for Ranking in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 27
- 2021Measuring Model Biases in the Absence of Ground Truthcited by 24
- 2020On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variancecited by 14
- 2020Statistical Equity: A Fairness Classification Objectivecited by 7
- 2021RAWLSNET: Altering Bayesian Networks to Encode Rawlsian Fair Equality of Opportunitycited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.
2 papers.