CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 676Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy

Open access
Binns, Reuben·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1712.03586arXiv 1712.03586
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What does it mean for a machine learning model to be `fair', in terms which can be operationalised? Should fairness consist of ensuring everyone has an equal probability of obtaining some benefit, or should we aim instead to minimise the harms to the least advantaged? Can the relevant ideal be determined by reference to some alternative state of affairs in which a particular social pattern of discrimination does not exist? Various definitions proposed in recent literature make different assumptions about what terms like discrimination and fairness mean and how they can be defined in mathematical terms. Questions of discrimination, egalitarianism and justice are of significant interest to moral and political philosophers, who have expended significant efforts in formalising and defending these central concepts. It is therefore unsurprising that attempts to formalise `fairness' in machine learning contain echoes of these old philosophical debates. This paper draws on existing work in moral and political philosophy in order to elucidate emerging debates about fair machine learning.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1712.03586

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning systems are essentially based on generalization and thus cannot treat people as individuals.

    “The inability to treat people as individuals -even if they appear identical to previous cases -is thus an endemic feature of machine learning systems, which are essentially based on generalization (Binns 2017).”

    From Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated <scp>decision‐making</scp> (2022) · cites this paper as Binns 2017

    Section 2.2 (pp. 4–5) says algorithmic systems are essentially based on generalisations and that a deterministic model gives the same output to people with the same attributes. But it presents the claim that this amounts to failing to treat people as individuals as conditional on a particular account of discrimination, which the paper then questions; the citing sentence states it unconditionally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The field of machine learning also has a plurality of definitions and criteria of fairness.

    “The field of machine learning also has a plurality of definitions and criteria of fairness”

    From Fairness and explainability in automatic decision-making systems. A challenge for computer science and law (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

  • Fairness in machine learning can refer to a variety of egalitarian considerations, and thus to criteria and theories of social justice, which it is legitimate to explain and justify.

    “As Binns [13] argues, fairness in machine learning can refer to a variety of egalitarian considerations, and thus to criteria and theories of social justice, which it is legitimate to explain and justify.”

    From Fairness and explainability in automatic decision-making systems. A challenge for computer science and law (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

  • There exist deep political disagreements about what exactly constitutes fairness.

    “While everyone might agree in principle that 'fairness' is important, there exist deep political disagreements about what exactly constitutes fairness [5].”

    From The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

  • Some important tensions are due to conflicts between principles in practice, while others arise because there are conflicting meanings or values within a single principle.

    “While some important tensions are due to conflicts between principles in practice, others arise because there are conflicting meanings or values within a single principle: broad terms like 'fairness' or 'justice' for example are subject to substantial moral and political disagreement [5,8].”

    From The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Elizabeth S Anderson. What is the point of equality? Ethics , 109(2):287-337, 1999.
  2. Richard J Arneson. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical studies , 56(1): 77-93, 1989.
  3. Reuben Binns, Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. Like trainer, like bot? inheritance of bias in algorithmic content moderation. In International Conference on Social Informatics , pages 405-415. Springer, 2017.
  4. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 4349-4357, 2016.
  5. Aylin Caliskan-Islam, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora necessarily contain human biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.07187 , 2016. · arXiv
  6. Gerald A Cohen. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics , 99(4):906-944, 1989.
  7. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference , pages 214-226. ACM, 2012.
  8. Ronald Dworkin. What is equality? part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy & public affairs , pages 185-246, 1981.
  9. Benjamin Eidelson. Discrimination and Disrespect . Oxford University Press, 2015.
  10. Margaret Gilbert. Collective epistemology. Episteme , 1(2):95-107, 2004.
  11. Sara Hajian and Josep Domingo-Ferrer. A methodology for direct and indirect discrimination prevention in data mining. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 25 (7):1445-1459, 2013.
  12. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, Nati Srebro, et al. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3315-3323, 2016.
  13. Deborah Hellman. When is discrimination wrong? Harvard University Press, 2008.
  14. Elisa Holmes. Anti-discrimination rights without equality. The Modern Law Review , 68(2):175194, 2005. bell hooks. Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. 1992.
  15. Robert Huseby. Can luck egalitarianism justify the fact that some are worse off than others? Journal of Applied Philosophy , 33(3):259-269, 2016.
  16. Matthew Joseph, Michael Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, Seth Neel, and Aaron Roth. Rawlsian fairness for machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09559 , 2016. · arXiv
  17. Faisal Kamiran, Toon Calders, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. Techniques for discrimination-free predictive models. In Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society , pages 223239. Springer, 2013.
  18. Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 , 2016. · arXiv
  19. Matt J Kusner, Joshua R Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06856 , 2017. · arXiv
  20. Annabelle Lever. Racial profiling and the political philosophy of race. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race , page 425, 2016.
  21. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen. Born free and equal?: a philosophical inquiry into the nature of discrimination . Oxford University Press, 2014.
  22. Derek Parfit. Equality and priority. Ratio , 10(3): 202-221, 1997.
  23. Philip Pettit. Responsibility incorporated. Ethics , 117(2):171-201, 2007.
  24. Edmund S Phelps. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. The american economic review , 62(4):659-661, 1972.
  25. John Rawls. A theory of justice . Harvard university press, 2009.
  26. Thomas M Scanlon. Moral dimensions . Harvard University Press, 2009.
  27. Frederick F Schauer. Profiles, probabilities, and stereotypes . Harvard University Press, 2009.
  28. Shlomi Segall. What's so bad about discrimination? Utilitas , 24(1):82-100, 2012.
  29. Amartya Sen. Inequality reexamined . Clarendon Press, 1992.
  30. Charles Taylor. Multiculturalism . Princeton University Press, 1994.
  31. Larry S Temkin. Inequality. Philosophy & Public Affairs , pages 99-121, 1986.
  32. Jens Damgaard Thaysen and Andreas Albertsen. When bad things happen to good people: luck egalitarianism and costly rescues. Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 16(1):93-112, 2017.
  33. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages 1171-1180. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2017.
  34. Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06368 , 2017. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Binns, R.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Binns, Reuben
ORCID
Binns, Reuben
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
Volume
81
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1712.03586
arXiv
1712.03586
OpenAlex
W2773523653
Cited by
676
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 269 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 10 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
  • Journal of Machine Learning Research
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (N02334X/1, EP/J017728/2, EP/J017728, EP/N02334X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, discrimination, egalitarianism, justice, political philosophy, ethics

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