Group fairness metrics are an established way of assessing the fairness of prediction-based decision-making systems. However, these metrics are still insufficiently linked to philosophical theories, and their moral meaning is often unclear. We propose a general framework for analyzing the fairness of decision systems based on theories of distributive justice, encompassing different established ``patterns of justice'' that correspond to different normative positions. We show that the most popular group fairness metrics can be interpreted as special cases of our approach. Thus, we provide a unifying and interpretative framework for group fairness metrics that reveals the normative choices associated with each of them and that allows understanding their moral substance. At the same time, we provide an extension of the space of possible fairness metrics beyond the ones currently discussed in the fair ML literature. Our framework also allows overcoming several limitations of group fairness metrics that have been criticized in the literature, most notably (1) that they are parity-based, i.e., that they demand some form of equality between groups, which may sometimes be harmful to marginalized groups, (2) that they only compare decisions across groups, but not the resulting consequences for these groups, and (3) that the full breadth of the distributive justice literature is not sufficiently represented.
翻译:集团公平性指标是评估基于预测的决策制度的公平性的一种既定方法,然而,这些衡量标准与哲学理论的联系仍然不够充分,其道德含义往往不明确。我们提议了一个总框架,用以分析基于分配正义理论的决策制度的公平性,包括不同的既定“司法模式”,与不同的规范立场相对应。我们表明,最受欢迎的集团公平性指标可以被解释为我们方法的特殊情况。因此,我们为集团公平性指标提供了一个统一和解释框架,它揭示了与每个指标相关的规范性选择,并使人们能够理解其道德实质。与此同时,我们提供了一个可能的平等性指标空间的扩大范围,超出了公平多边法律文献中目前讨论的范围。我们的框架还允许克服文献中批评的群体公平性指标的若干限制,其中最明显的是:(1) 它们基于平等,即它们要求不同群体之间某种形式的平等,有时可能有害于边缘化群体,(2)它们只比较不同群体之间的决定,而不是由此对这些群体产生的后果。(3) 我们的框架还允许充分体现分配性文学的全面范围。