What's Fair about Individual Fairness?
Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (2021)
Abstract
One of the main lines of research in algorithmic fairness involves individual fairness (IF) methods. Individual fairness is motivated by an intuitive principle, similar treatment, which requires that similar individuals be treated similarly. IF offers a precise account of this principle using distance metrics to evaluate the similarity of individuals. Proponents of individual fairness have argued that it gives the correct definition of algorithmic fairness, and that it should therefore be preferred to other methods for determining fairness. I argue that individual fairness cannot serve as a definition of fairness. Moreover, IF methods should not be given priority over other fairness methods, nor used in isolation from them. To support these conclusions, I describe four in-principle problems for individual fairness as a definition and as a method for ensuring fairness: (1) counterexamples show that similar treatment (and therefore IF) are insufficient to guarantee fairness; (2) IF methods for learning similarity metrics are at risk of encoding human implicit bias; (3) IF requires prior moral judgments, limiting its usefulness as a guide for fairness and undermining its claim to define fairness; and (4) the incommensurability of relevant moral values makes similarity metrics impossible for many tasks. In light of these limitations, I suggest that individual fairness cannot be a definition of fairness, and instead should be seen as one tool among several for ameliorating algorithmic bias.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Procedural and Distributive Fairness: Determinants of Overall Price Fairness.Jodie L. Ferguson, Pam Scholder Ellen & William O. Bearden - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 121 (2):1-15.
A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunity.Hoda Heidari - 2019 - Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1.
Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility. [REVIEW]Stefan T. Trautmann - 2010 - Theory and Decision 68 (4):405-415.
Fairness in hierarchical and entrepreneurial firms.Michael K. Green - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (11):877-882.
Fairness in Uncertainty: Some Limits and Misinterpretations of Actuarial Fairness.Sylvestre Frezal & Laurence Barry - 2020 - Journal of Business Ethics 167 (1):127-136.
Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle. [REVIEW]Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden - 2014 - Theory and Decision 77 (1):125-151.
The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Followers' Perceptions of Fairness.Eliane Bacha & Sandra Walker - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 116 (3):667-680.
Fairness, Regulation of Technology and Enhanced Human: A Comparative Analysis of the Pistorius Case and the Cybathlon.Rémi Richard, Damien Issanchou & Sylvain Ferez - 2020 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 15 (4):507-521.
Fairness, fast and slow: A review of dual process models of fairness.Bjørn Hallsson, Hartwig R. Siebner & Oliver J. Hulme - 2018 - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 89:49-60.
Broome's Theory of Fairness and the Problem of Quantifying the Strengths of Claims.James R. Kirkpatrick & Nick Eastwood - 2015 - Utilitas 27 (1):82-91.
Fairness, Political Obligation, and the Justificatory Gap.Jiafeng Zhu - 2014 - Journal of Moral Philosophy (4):1-23.
Analytics
Added to PP
2021-05-01
Downloads
319 (#37,084)
6 months
67 (#17,132)
2021-05-01
Downloads
319 (#37,084)
6 months
67 (#17,132)
Historical graph of downloads