arXiv:2512.06944cs.LGcs.AI2025-12

提出统一的人类中心公平框架,让不同利益方共同决定AI公平的权衡方式。

A Unifying Human-Centered AI Fairness Framework

  • 整合8种公平指标,结合个体与群体、交叉性与机会平等等视角
  • 通过加权机制展现不同公平目标间的复杂权衡关系
  • 已在司法、医疗等场景验证,适合需多方协商的公平决策

人工智能在关键社会领域应用日益广泛,引发对种族、性别、社会经济地位等敏感属性下不平等待遇的担忧。尽管已有大量公平性研究,但在多种公平概念与预测准确率之间的权衡仍难协调,阻碍了公平AI的实际落地。为此,本文提出一个统一的人类中心公平框架,系统涵盖由个体/群体公平、亚边际/交叉性假设以及结果导向与机会均等(EOO)视角组合而成的8种公平度量。该结构使利益相关方能根据自身价值观和情境选择公平干预策略。框架采用一致且易懂的形式,降低非专家的理解门槛。不偏袒单一公平标准,而是允许在多个公平目标间分配权重,反映优先级并促进多方共识。我们在四个真实数据集上验证:UCI Adult收入预测、COMPAS再犯风险、German Credit信用风险评估、MEPS医疗使用情况。结果显示,调整权重可揭示不同公平度量间的精细权衡。最后,通过司法决策与医疗场景的案例研究,证明该框架能支持价值敏感且实际可行的公平AI部署。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical societal domains has amplified concerns about fairness, particularly regarding unequal treatment across sensitive attributes such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. While there has been substantial work on ensuring AI fairness, navigating trade-offs between competing notions of fairness as well as predictive accuracy remains challenging, creating barriers to the practical deployment of fair AI systems. To address this, we introduce a unifying human-centered fairness framework that systematically covers eight distinct fairness metrics, formed by combining individual and group fairness, infra-marginal and intersectional assumptions, and outcome-based and equality-of-opportunity (EOO) perspectives. This structure allows stakeholders to align fairness interventions with their values and contextual considerations. The framework uses a consistent and easy-to-understand formulation for all metrics to reduce the learning curve for non-experts. Rather than privileging a single fairness notion, the framework enables stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives, reflecting their priorities and facilitating multi-stakeholder compromises. We apply this approach to four real-world datasets: the UCI Adult census dataset for income prediction, the COMPAS dataset for criminal recidivism, the German Credit dataset for credit risk assessment, and the MEPS dataset for healthcare utilization. We show that adjusting weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics. Finally, through case studies in judicial decision-making and healthcare, we demonstrate how the framework can inform practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.

AI公平性多目标权衡人类中心政策支持

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。