CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 209Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

Open access
Grgic-Hlaca, Nina, Redmiles, Elissa M., Gummadi, Krishna P., Weller, Adrian·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18
DOI 10.1145/3178876.3186138
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism, concerns have been raised about the fairness of algorithmic decision making. Most prior works on algorithmic fairness normatively prescribe how fair decisions ought to be made. In contrast, here, we descriptively survey users for how they perceive and reason about fairness in algorithmic decision making. A key contribution of this work is the framework we propose to understand why people perceive certain features as fair or unfair to be used in algorithms. Our framework identifies eight properties of features, such as relevance, volitionality and reliability, as latent considerations that inform people»s moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making algorithms. We validate our framework through a series of scenario-based surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person»s assessment of the eight latent properties of a feature in our exemplar scenario, we can accurately (> 85%) predict if the person will judge the use of the feature as fair. Our findings have important implications. At a high-level, we show that people»s unfairness concerns are multi-dimensional and argue that future studies need to address unfairness concerns beyond discrimination. At a low-level, we find considerable disagreements in people»s fairness judgments. We identify root causes of the disagreements, and note possible pathways to resolve them.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3178876.3186138

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bernard Gert and Joshua Gert. 2017. The Definition of Morality. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  2. Pew Research Center. 2016. 2016 Party Identification Detailed Tables. (2016). http: //www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
  3. Bilal Qureshi, Faisal Kamiran, Asim Karim, and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2016. Causal Discrimination Discovery Through Propensity Score Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03735 (2016). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–209 of 209

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grgic-Hlaca, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS) & Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (DE)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2018
Pages
903-912
DOI
10.1145/3178876.3186138
OpenAlex
W2964316623
Cited by
207
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 4
FWCI
38.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE 1322106)
  • Leverhulme Trust via the CFI
  • The Alan Turing Institute under EPSRC grant (EP/N510129/1 & TU/B/000074)
  • David MacKay Newton research fellowship at Darwin College
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, perceived fairness, algorithmic decision-making, feature relevance, volitionality, reliability, moral judgment, fairness judgments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review