Evaluating Intersectional Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making Using Intersectional Differential Algorithmic Functioning

被引:0
|
作者
Suk, Youmi [1 ]
Han, Kyung T. [2 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Teachers Coll, Dept Human Dev, 525 West 120th St, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] Grad Management Admiss Council, Test Dev & Psychometr, 11921 Freedom Dr,Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
fairness; intersectionality; discrimination; algorithms; machine learning; decision analysis; differential item functioning; regularized regression; STANDARDIZATION APPROACH; VARIABLE SELECTION; ITEM; DIF; RETENTION;
D O I
10.3102/10769986241269820
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Ensuring fairness is crucial in developing modern algorithms and tests. To address potential biases and discrimination in algorithmic decision making, researchers have drawn insights from the test fairness literature, notably the work on differential algorithmic functioning (DAF) by Suk and Han. Nevertheless, the exploration of intersectionality in fairness investigations, within both test fairness and algorithmic fairness fields, is still relatively new. In this paper, we propose an extension of the DAF framework to include the concept of intersectionality. Similar to DAF, the proposed notion for intersectionality, which we term "interactive DAF," leverages ideas from test fairness and algorithmic fairness. We also provide methods based on the generalized Mantel-Haenszel test, generalized logistic regression, and regularized group regression to detect DAF, interactive DAF, or other subtypes of DAF. Specifically, we employ regularized group regression with three different penalties and examine their performance via a simulation study. Finally, we demonstrate our intersectional DAF framework in real-world applications on grade retention and conditional cash transfer programs in education.
引用
收藏
页数:30
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Accountability in Algorithmic Decision Making
    Diakopoulos, Nicholas
    COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2016, 59 (02) : 56 - 62
  • [22] Transparency in Algorithmic Decision Making
    Rauber, Andreas
    Trasarti, Roberto
    Giannotti, Fosca
    ERCIM NEWS, 2019, (116): : 10 - 11
  • [23] On the Advantages of Distinguishing Between Predictive and Allocative Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Beigang, Fabian
    MINDS AND MACHINES, 2022, 32 (04) : 655 - 682
  • [24] On the Advantages of Distinguishing Between Predictive and Allocative Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Fabian Beigang
    Minds and Machines, 2022, 32 : 655 - 682
  • [25] Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice
    Chiao, Vincent
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW IN CONTEXT, 2019, 15 (02) : 126 - 139
  • [26] Correction to: Weapons of moral construction? On the value of fairness in algorithmic decision-making
    Benedetta Giovanola
    Simona Tiribelli
    Ethics and Information Technology, 2024, 26
  • [27] Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature
    Starke, Christopher
    Baleis, Janine
    Keller, Birte
    Marcinkowski, Frank
    BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2022, 9 (02):
  • [28] A Human-Centric Perspective on Fairness and Transparency in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Schoeffer, Jakob
    EXTENDED ABSTRACTS OF THE 2022 CHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, CHI 2022, 2022,
  • [29] Beyond Distributive Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Feature Selection for Procedurally Fair Learning
    Grgic-Hlaca, Nina
    Zafar, Muhammad Bilal
    Gummadi, Krishna P.
    Weller, Adrian
    THIRTY-SECOND AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / THIRTIETH INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE / EIGHTH AAAI SYMPOSIUM ON EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2018, : 51 - 60
  • [30] Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making
    Indrė Žliobaitė
    Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2017, 31 : 1060 - 1089