analiza aiqbench
This research challenges standard probabilistic fairness metrics by introducing a utility-based framework that accounts for the actual consequences of AI decisions, such as student completion rates or mortgage default impacts. The study demonstrates that systems deemed "fair" under traditional $\varepsilon$-fairness definitions can still produce highly unequal outcomes when real-world utilities are considered. For practitioners in high-stakes domains like lending and admissions, this highlights the necessity of moving beyond statistical parity to evaluate the tangible effects of algorithmic outputs on different groups.
When fairness metrics fail: A utility-based perspective on $\varepsilon$-fairness
arXiv:2405.09360v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Fairness in decision-making processes is often quantified using probabilistic metrics. However, these metrics need not reflect the consequences of decisions for the affected individuals and groups. We develop a utility-based framework that incorporates these consequences into the assessment of fairness. Our main result shows that a decision-making process can satisfy $\varepsilon$-fairness while nevertheless being maximally unfair once the utilities associated with its outcomes are taken into account. To address applications in which information on false negatives is unavailable, we also formulate a reduced setting that retains the essential elements of the utility-based fairness assessment. We illustrate the framework through two applications: college admissions and credit-risk assessment. In both cases, probabilistic metrics may classify a decision-making process as approximately fair even though the corresponding utility outcomes are highly unequal. In the college-admissions example, our analysis shows that improving completion rates is necessary to achieve equality of utility across groups, while in the mortgage example, mitigating unfairness requires not only adjusting approval rates but also reducing the adverse consequences of default. These findings demonstrate that fairness assessments should account not only for the probabilities of different decisions but also for the consequences of those decisions.
Abstract:Fairness in decision-making processes is often quantified using probabilistic metrics. However, these metrics need not reflect the consequences of decisions for the affected individuals and groups. We develop a utility-based framework that incorporates these consequences into the assessment of fairness. Our main result shows that a decision-making process can satisfy $\varepsilon$-fairness while nevertheless being maximally unfair once the utilities associated with its outcomes are taken into account. To address applications in which information on false negatives is unavailable, we also formulate a reduced setting that retains the essential elements of the utility-based fairness assessment. We illustrate the framework through two applications: college admissions and credit-risk assessment. In both cases, probabilistic metrics may classify a decision-making process as approximately fair even though the corresponding utility outcomes are highly unequal. In the college-admissions example, our analysis shows that improving completion rates is necessary to achieve equality of utility across groups, while in the mortgage example, mitigating unfairness requires not only adjusting approval rates but also reducing the adverse consequences of default. These findings demonstrate that fairness assessments should account not only for the probabilities of different decisions but also for the consequences of those decisions.
Revised version with a new title, updated results, and additional references. The main conclusions remain unchanged
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Theoretical Economics (econ.TH); Mathematical Finance (q-fin.MF); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2405.09360 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2405.09360v3 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.09360 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 310 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026

An unexamined cause of the OpenAI Hugging Face hacking incident: its binary performance metric
LessWrong · 23 sept. 2026

The world's best gradual disempowerment model organism: Frontier AI labs
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026