Abstract
Many machine learning systems make extensive use of large amounts of data regarding human behaviors. Several researchers have found various discriminatory practices related to the use of human-related machine learning systems, for example in the field of criminal justice, credit scoring and advertising. Fair machine learning is therefore emerging as a new field of study to mitigate biases that are inadvertently incorporated into algorithms. Data scientists and computer engineers are making various efforts to provide definitions of fairness. In this paper, we provide an overview of the most widespread definitions of fairness in the field of machine learning, arguing that the ideas highlighting each formalization are closely related to different ideas of justice and to different interpretations of democracy embedded in our culture. This work intends to analyze the definitions of fairness that have been proposed to date to interpret the underlying criteria and to relate them to different ideas of democracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., Narayanan, A.: Fairness and Machine Learning. fairmlbook.org (2018). http://www.fairmlbook.org
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., Roth, A.: Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state of the art. Sociol. Methods Res. (2018)
Berliant, M., Thomson, W.: On the fair division of a heterogeneous commodity. J. Math. Econ. 21, 201–216 (1992)
Binns, R.: Fairness in machine learning: lessons from political philosophy. In: Friedler, S.A., Wilsonf, C. (eds.) Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 81, pp. 149–159 (2018)
Bobbio, N.: Eguaglianza e libertá. Einaudi, Torino, Italy (1995)
Bozdag, E., van den Hoven, J.: Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics Inf. Technol. 17, 249–265 (2015)
Chouldechova, A.: Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data (2017)
Christiano, T.: Democracy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006)
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., Huq, A.: Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2017 (2017)
Dieterich, W., Mendoza, C., Brennan, T.: Compas risk scales: demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity. Technical report, Northpointe Inc. (2016)
Dunn, J.: Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., Zemeln, R.: Fairness through awareness. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, pp. 214–226. ACM (2012)
Gajane, P., Pechenizkiy, M.: On formalizing fairness in prediction with machine learning arXiv:1710.03184 (2018)
Habermas, J.: Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)
Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2016)
Held, D.: Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto (2006)
Held, D.: The Democratic Paradox. Verso, London (2009)
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., Raghavan, M.: Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS 2017 (2017)
Kusner, M.J., Loftus, J.R., Russell, C., Silva, R.: Counterfactual fairness. In: Proceedings of 31st Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS 2017 (2017)
O’Neil, C.: Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown Publishing Group, New York (2016)
Pasquale, F.: The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2015)
Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard (1971)
Rawls, J.: The Idea of Public Reason. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)
Simoiu, C., Corbett-Davies, S., Goel, S.: The problem of infra-marginality in outcome tests for discrimination. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11, 1193–1216 (2017)
Sweeney, L.: Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue Storage 11(3), pages 10 (2013)
Varian, H.: Equity, envy, and efficiency. J. Econ. Theory 9, 63–91 (1974)
Zafar, M.B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M.G., Gummadi, K.P.: Fairness beyond disparate treatment and disparate impact: learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017 (2017)
Zafar, M.B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M.G., Gummadi, K.P., Weller, A.: From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In: Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS 2017 (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Beretta, E., Santangelo, A., Lepri, B., Vetrò, A., De Martin, J.C. (2019). The Invisible Power of Fairness. How Machine Learning Shapes Democracy. In: Meurs, MJ., Rudzicz, F. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Canadian AI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11489. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18305-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18305-9_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18304-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18305-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)