From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As AI systems, particularly generative models, increasingly influence decision-making, ensuring that they are able to fairly represent diverse human preferences becomes crucial. This paper introduces a novel framework for evaluating epistemic fairness in preference learning models inspired by economic theories of inequality and Rawlsian justice. We propose metrics adapted from the Gini Coefficient, Atkinson Index, and Kuznets Ratio to quantify fairness in these models. We validate our approach using two datasets: a custom visual preference dataset (AI-EDI-Space) and the Jester Jokes dataset. Our analysis reveals variations in model performance across users, highlighting potential epistemic injustices. We explore pre-processing and in-processing techniques to mitigate these inequalities, demonstrating a complex relationship between model efficiency and fairness. This work contributes to AI ethics by providing a framework for evaluating and improving epistemic fairness in preference learning models, offering insights for developing more inclusive AI systems in contexts where diverse human preferences are crucial.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2024.
Builds on
20 of 35 references.
References · 20
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,442
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2016SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and <0.5MB model sizecited by 1,060
- 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 656
- 2023Rewarded soups: towards Pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewardscited by 243
- 2022Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferencescited by 189
- 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
- 2024MaxMin-RLHF: Alignment with Diverse Human Preferencescited by 123
8 more
- 2018Optimization with Non-Differentiable Constraints with Applications to Fairness, Recall, Churn, and Other Goalscited by 103
- 2016Deep Learning the City : Quantifying Urban Perception At A Global Scalecited by 65
- 2019Pairwise Fairness for Ranking and Regressioncited by 58
- 2023On Diversified Preferences of Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 26
- 2022How unfair is private learning ?cited by 18
- 2024Epistemic Injustice in Generative AIcited by 16
- 2023Generalized Bradley-Terry Models for Score Estimation from Paired Comparisonscited by 9
- 2022Robust Sparse Votingcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.