arXiv:2506.12556cs.LGcs.AI2025-06

算法公平不是纯技术问题,需结合社会背景理解。

Algorithmic Fairness: Not a Purely Technical but Socio-Technical Property

  • 提出公平性是社技融合属性,非仅模型约束。
  • 指出现有度量在复杂场景中适用性有限。
  • 建议设计公平度量应考虑三原则,适合政策制定者。

人工智能和机器学习系统在社会关键领域的广泛应用引发了对其可信度的担忧,尤其是潜在的歧视行为。尽管算法公平研究产生了大量数学定义与度量,但其有效性受限于普遍存在的误解与局限:对公平的理解缺乏共识,多数度量仅适用于二元群体,且对交叉情境处理浅显。本文批判性地审视这些误解,主张公平不能简化为模型的技术约束;通过概念分析与实证例证,揭示现有度量在复杂现实场景中的适用性不足,挑战了准确率与公平性不相容、不同公平度量互斥等主流观点,并提出设计公平度量时应考量的三个基本原则。这些发现有助于弥合技术形式化与社会现实之间的鸿沟,应对真实世界中AI/ML部署的挑战。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The rapid trend of deploying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems in socially consequential domains has raised growing concerns about their trustworthiness, including potential discriminatory behaviours. Research in algorithmic fairness has generated a proliferation of mathematical definitions and metrics, yet persistent misconceptions and limitations -- both within and beyond the fairness community -- limit their effectiveness, such as an unreached consensus on its understanding, prevailing measures primarily tailored to binary group settings, and superficial handling for intersectional contexts. Here we critically remark on these misconceptions and argue that fairness cannot be reduced to purely technical constraints on models; we also examine the limitations of existing fairness measures through conceptual analysis and empirical illustrations, showing their limited applicability in the face of complex real-world scenarios, challenging prevailing views on the incompatibility between accuracy and fairness as well as that among fairness measures themselves, and outlining three worth-considering principles in the design of fairness measures. We believe these findings will help bridge the gap between technical formalisation and social realities and meet the challenges of real-world AI/ML deployment.

算法公平社技融合度量设计

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。