mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Unifying Human-Centered AI Fairness Framework

arXiv 2512.06944 ↗First posted 7 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical societal domains has amplified concerns about fairness, particularly regarding unequal treatment across sensitive attributes such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. While there has been substantial work on ensuring AI fairness, navigating trade-offs between competing notions of fairness as well as predictive accuracy remains challenging, creating barriers to the practical deployment of fair AI systems. To address this, we introduce a unifying human-centered fairness framework that systematically covers eight distinct fairness metrics, formed by combining individual and group fairness, infra-marginal and intersectional assumptions, and outcome-based and equality-of-opportunity (EOO) perspectives. This structure allows stakeholders to align fairness interventions with their values and contextual considerations. The framework uses a consistent and easy-to-understand formulation for all metrics to reduce the learning curve for non-experts. Rather than privileging a single fairness notion, the framework enables stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives, reflecting their priorities and facilitating multi-stakeholder compromises. We apply this approach to four real-world datasets: the UCI Adult census dataset for income prediction, the COMPAS dataset for criminal recidivism, the German Credit dataset for credit risk assessment, and the MEPS dataset for healthcare utilization. We show that adjusting weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics. Finally, through case studies in judicial decision-making and healthcare, we demonstrate how the framework can inform practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Dec 2025.

Builds on

21 of 65 references.

References · 21

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  3. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
  4. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
  5. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
  6. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  7. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  8. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  9. 2017Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraintscited by 420
  10. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
  11. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
  12. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
9 more
  1. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  2. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  3. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  4. 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 149
  5. 2017A Convex Framework for Fair Regressioncited by 148
  6. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 127
  7. 2019Automatically Neutralizing Subjective Bias in Textcited by 105
  8. 2020Accuracy and Fairness Trade-offs in Machine Learning: A Stochastic Multi-Objective Approachcited by 39
  9. 2023Optimizing fairness tradeoffs in machine learning with multiobjective meta-modelscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.