Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions

TL;DR

This paper proposes a new approach to fairness in machine learning by evaluating systems across multiple stakeholder-defined distributions, emphasizing context-dependent assessments and stakeholder involvement.

Contribution

It introduces a distribution-based fairness evaluation framework using stress tests, moving beyond rigid metrics to incorporate stakeholder-curated examples and interpretability.

Findings

Stress testing reveals fairness strengths and weaknesses.

Stakeholder involvement enhances fairness assessment.

Framework improves interpretability and contextual relevance.

Abstract

As learning machines increase their influence on decisions concerning human lives, analyzing their fairness properties becomes a subject of central importance. Yet, our best tools for measuring the fairness of learning systems are rigid fairness metrics encapsulated as mathematical one-liners, offer limited power to the stakeholders involved in the prediction task, and are easy to manipulate when we exhort excessive pressure to optimize them. To advance these issues, we propose to shift focus from shaping fairness metrics to curating the distributions of examples under which these are computed. In particular, we posit that every claim about fairness should be immediately followed by the tagline "Fair under what examples, and collected by whom?". By highlighting connections to the literature in domain generalization, we propose to measure fairness as the ability of the system to generalize under multiple stress tests -- distributions of examples with social relevance. We encourage each stakeholder to curate one or multiple stress tests containing examples reflecting their (possibly conflicting) interests. The machine passes or fails each stress test by falling short of or exceeding a pre-defined metric value. The test results involve all stakeholders in a discussion about how to improve the learning system, and provide flexible assessments of fairness dependent on context and based on interpretable data. We provide full implementation guidelines for stress testing, illustrate both the benefits and shortcomings of this framework, and introduce a cryptographic scheme to enable a degree of prediction accountability from system providers.