Learning Social Fairness Preferences from Non-Expert Stakeholder Opinions in Kidney Placement
This work addresses fairness concerns in kidney allocation for stakeholders, but it is incremental as it builds on existing methods by incorporating non-expert feedback.
The paper tackled the problem of social discrimination in kidney placement recommendation systems by designing a fairness feedback survey to collect public opinions from 85 crowd participants, estimating preferences towards group fairness notions and deeming a specific acceptance rate predictor as fair.
Modern kidney placement incorporates several intelligent recommendation systems which exhibit social discrimination due to biases inherited from training data. Although initial attempts were made in the literature to study algorithmic fairness in kidney placement, these methods replace true outcomes with surgeons' decisions due to the long delays involved in recording such outcomes reliably. However, the replacement of true outcomes with surgeons' decisions disregards expert stakeholders' biases as well as social opinions of other stakeholders who do not possess medical expertise. This paper alleviates the latter concern and designs a novel fairness feedback survey to evaluate an acceptance rate predictor (ARP) that predicts a kidney's acceptance rate in a given kidney-match pair. The survey is launched on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform, and public opinions are collected from 85 anonymous crowd participants. A novel social fairness preference learning algorithm is proposed based on minimizing social feedback regret computed using a novel logit-based fairness feedback model. The proposed model and learning algorithm are both validated using simulation experiments as well as Prolific data. Public preferences towards group fairness notions in the context of kidney placement have been estimated and discussed in detail. The specific ARP tested in the Prolific survey has been deemed fair by the participants.