论文标题
校准是公平要求吗？从道德哲学和决策理论的角度来看的论点
Is calibration a fairness requirement? An argument from the point of view of moral philosophy and decision theory
论文作者
论文摘要
在本文中，我们对机器学习文献中统计公平性辩论的两个标准进行道德分析：1）组之间的校准和2）组之间的假阳性和假负率的平等。在我们的论文中，我们专注于支持任何一种措施的道德论点。群体校准与假阳性和假负率平等之间的冲突是有关从业者群体公平定义的辩论中的核心问题之一。对于任何彻底的道德分析，必须将公平性一词的含义明确和正确定义。对于我们的论文，我们将公平等同于（非）歧视，这是关于群体公平性的讨论中的合理理解。更具体地说，我们将其等同于表面上的错误歧视，从某种意义上说，这用于Lippert-Rasmussen教授对此定义的处理。在本文中，我们认为违反群体校准的行为在某些情况下可能是不公平的，但在其他情况下并不不公平。这与文献中已经提出的主张相一致，即应以对上下文敏感的方式定义算法公平性。最重要的实际含义是基于基于示例的论点，即公平性需要组间校准或假阳性/假阴性率的平等性，并没有概括。因为在一种情况下，组校准可能是公平的要求，而不是另一种情况。
In this paper, we provide a moral analysis of two criteria of statistical fairness debated in the machine learning literature: 1) calibration between groups and 2) equality of false positive and false negative rates between groups. In our paper, we focus on moral arguments in support of either measure. The conflict between group calibration vs. false positive and false negative rate equality is one of the core issues in the debate about group fairness definitions among practitioners. For any thorough moral analysis, the meaning of the term fairness has to be made explicit and defined properly. For our paper, we equate fairness with (non-)discrimination, which is a legitimate understanding in the discussion about group fairness. More specifically, we equate it with prima facie wrongful discrimination in the sense this is used in Prof. Lippert-Rasmussen's treatment of this definition. In this paper, we argue that a violation of group calibration may be unfair in some cases, but not unfair in others. This is in line with claims already advanced in the literature, that algorithmic fairness should be defined in a way that is sensitive to context. The most important practical implication is that arguments based on examples in which fairness requires between-group calibration, or equality in the false-positive/false-negative rates, do no generalize. For it may be that group calibration is a fairness requirement in one case, but not in another.
