mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating AI Group Fairness: a Fuzzy Logic Perspective

arXiv 2406.18939 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2024cs.AI cs.CY cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence systems often address fairness concerns by evaluating and mitigating measures of group discrimination, for example that indicate biases against certain genders or races. However, what constitutes group fairness depends on who is asked and the social context, whereas definitions are often relaxed to accept small deviations from the statistical constraints they set out to impose. Here we decouple definitions of group fairness both from the context and from relaxation-related uncertainty by expressing them in the axiomatic system of Basic fuzzy Logic (BL) with loosely understood predicates, like encountering group members. We then evaluate the definitions in subclasses of BL, such as Product or Lukasiewicz logics. Evaluation produces continuous instead of binary truth values by choosing the logic subclass and truth values for predicates that reflect uncertain context-specific beliefs, such as stakeholder opinions gathered through questionnaires. Internally, it follows logic-specific rules to compute the truth values of definitions. We show that commonly held propositions standardize the resulting mathematical formulas and we transcribe logic and truth value choices to layperson terms, so that anyone can answer them. We also use our framework to study several literature definitions of algorithmic fairness, for which we rationalize previous expedient practices that are non-probabilistic and show how to re-interpret their formulas and parameters in new contexts.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2024.

Builds on

22 of 61 references.

References · 22

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  4. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  5. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  6. 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
  7. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  8. 2021Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practicescited by 206
  9. 2020Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Reviewcited by 174
  10. 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
  11. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
  12. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
10 more
  1. 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
  2. 2021Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challengescited by 56
  3. 2022Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approachescited by 23
  4. 2022The four-fifths rule is not disparate impact: a woeful tale of epistemic trespassing in algorithmic fairnesscited by 21
  5. 2019Preference-Informed Fairnesscited by 15
  6. 2022Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Paritycited by 15
  7. 2023Multi-dimensional discrimination in Law and Machine Learning -- A comparative overviewcited by 15
  8. 2022Personalized Algorithmic Recourse with Preference Elicitationcited by 9
  9. 2013Fuzzy Logic and Probabilitycited by 3
  10. 2023Toward A Logical Theory Of Fairness and Biascited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.