Haruka Maeda

Yijun Bian, Lei You, Yuya Sasaki et al.

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.

Yuya Sasaki, Sohei Tokuno, Haruka Maeda et al.

Which fairness metrics are appropriately applicable in your contexts? There may be instances of discordance regarding the perception of fairness, even when the outcomes comply with established fairness metrics. Several questionnaire-based surveys have been conducted to evaluate fairness metrics with human perceptions of fairness. However, these surveys were limited in scope, including only a few hundred participants within a single country. In this study, we conduct an international survey to evaluate public perceptions of various fairness metrics in decision-making scenarios. We collected responses from 1,000 participants in each of China, France, Japan, and the United States, amassing a total of 4,000 participants, to analyze the preferences of fairness metrics. Our survey consists of three distinct scenarios paired with four fairness metrics. This investigation explores the relationship between personal attributes and the choice of fairness metrics, uncovering a significant influence of national context on these preferences.