Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
There are many incompatible ways to measure fair outcomes for machine learning algorithms. The goal of this paper is to characterize rates of success and error across protected groups (race, gender, sexual orientation) as a distribution problem, and describe the possible solutions to this problem according to different normative principles from moral and political philosophy. These normative principles are based on various competing attributes within a distribution problem: intentions, compensation, desert, consent, and consequences. Each principle will be applied to a sample risk-assessment classifier to demonstrate the philosophical arguments underlying different sets of fairness metrics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek Leben (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: