mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing, and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders

arXiv 2407.11442 ↗First posted 16 Jul 2024cs.AI cs.CY cs.HCcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Numerous fairness metrics have been proposed and employed by artificial intelligence (AI) experts to quantitatively measure bias and define fairness in AI models. Recognizing the need to accommodate stakeholders' diverse fairness understandings, efforts are underway to solicit their input. However, conveying AI fairness metrics to stakeholders without AI expertise, capturing their personal preferences, and seeking a collective consensus remain challenging and underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a new framework, EARN Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise. The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to Explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection. To gather empirical results, we applied the framework to a credit rating scenario and conducted a user study involving 18 decision subjects without AI knowledge. We identify their personal metric preferences and their acceptable level of unfairness in individual sessions. Subsequently, we uncovered how they reached metric consensus in team sessions. Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework enables stakeholders to express personal preferences and reach consensus, providing practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts. Through this approach, we aim to harmonize fairness expectations of diverse stakeholders, fostering more equitable and inclusive AI fairness.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.

Builds on

34 of 75 references.

References · 34

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  4. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  5. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  6. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  7. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  8. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 369
  9. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  10. 2019The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 207
  11. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
  12. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
22 more
  1. 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
  2. 2022Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 125
  3. 2021A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscapecited by 98
  4. 2019FairVis: Visual Analytics for Discovering Intersectional Bias in Machine Learningcited by 93
  5. 2018An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 81
  6. 2023Fairlearn: Assessing and Improving Fairness of AI Systemscited by 74
  7. 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 61
  8. 2019FairSight: Visual Analytics for Fairness in Decision Makingcited by 59
  9. 2019Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 57
  10. 2019Metric Learning for Individual Fairnesscited by 51
  11. 2018How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairnesscited by 48
  12. 2020dalex: Responsible Machine Learning with Interactive Explainability and Fairness in Pythoncited by 40
  13. 2021Soliciting Stakeholders' Fairness Notions in Child Maltreatment Predictive Systemscited by 27
  14. 2023Deliberating with AI: Improving Decision-Making for the Future through Participatory AI Design and Stakeholder Deliberationcited by 17
  15. 2024The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi-Stakeholder Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI Proposalscited by 15
  16. 2021Transitioning from Real to Synthetic data: Quantifying the bias in modelcited by 12
  17. 2020Joint Optimization of AI Fairness and Utility: A Human-Centered Approachcited by 10
  18. 2022Towards A Holistic View of Bias in Machine Learning: Bridging Algorithmic Fairness and Imbalanced Learningcited by 10
  19. 2022Towards Responsible AI: A Design Space Exploration of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence User Interfaces to Investigate Fairnesscited by 9
  20. 2022Multi-disciplinary fairness considerations in machine learning for clinical trialscited by 8
  21. 2023Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 7
  22. 2021On the Current and Emerging Challenges of Developing Fair and Ethical AI Solutions in Financial Servicescited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

5 papers.