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
  • [41] Statistical evidence and algorithmic decision-making
    Holm, Sune
    SYNTHESE, 2023, 202 (01)
  • [42] Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making
    Williams, Rebecca
    OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2022, 42 (02) : 468 - 494
  • [43] Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Control Problem
    Zerilli, John
    Knott, Alistair
    Maclaurin, James
    Gavaghan, Colin
    MINDS AND MACHINES, 2019, 29 (04) : 555 - 578
  • [44] An Algorithmic Model of Decision Making in the Human Brain
    Moghadam, Sohrab Saberi
    Khodadad, Farid Samsami
    Khazaeinezhad, Vahid
    BASIC AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2019, 10 (05) : 443 - 449
  • [45] Clinical decision-making and algorithmic inequality
    Challen, Robert
    Danon, Leon
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2023, 32 (09) : 495 - 497
  • [46] On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare
    Grote, Thomas
    Berens, Philipp
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2020, 46 (03) : 205 - 211
  • [47] Statistical evidence and algorithmic decision-making
    Sune Holm
    Synthese, 202
  • [48] Algorithmic legitimacy in clinical decision-making
    Sune Holm
    Ethics and Information Technology, 2023, 25
  • [49] Algorithmic Decision Making in Education: Challenges and Opportunities
    Levantis, Nikolaos
    Sgora, Aggeliki
    2024 IEEE GLOBAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION CONFERENCE, EDUCON 2024, 2024,
  • [50] Gender discrimination in algorithmic decision-making
    Andreeva, Galina
    Matuszyk, Anna
    2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED RESEARCH METHODS AND ANALYTICS (CARMA 2018), 2018, : 251 - 251