A Unifying Human-Centered AI Fairness Framework

Summary

This paper introduces a unifying human-centered AI fairness framework designed to systematically integrate eight distinct fairness metrics, addressing the challenge of navigating trade-offs between competing fairness notions and predictive accuracy. The framework allows stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives, facilitating the practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems in critical domains like healthcare.

Medical Relevance

This framework is highly relevant to medicine and health by offering a systematic method to ensure ethical and equitable application of AI in healthcare, mitigating biases in critical decision-making processes such as patient risk assessment, resource allocation, and diagnostic support across diverse populations, as demonstrated through its application to healthcare utilization data.

AI Health Application

The framework develops methods for ensuring fairness in AI systems, which are then demonstrated in healthcare contexts. This includes ensuring equitable outcomes when AI is used for tasks like predicting healthcare utilization, assessing patient risk, or allocating medical resources, thereby mitigating bias related to race, gender, or socioeconomic status in healthcare AI applications.

Key Points

• Addresses the critical challenge of ensuring AI fairness by providing a structured approach to manage trade-offs between various fairness metrics and predictive accuracy in sensitive applications.
• Proposes a novel human-centered framework that systematically unifies eight distinct fairness metrics, derived from combinations of individual/group fairness, infra-marginal/intersectional assumptions, and outcome-based/equality-of-opportunity perspectives.
• The framework uses a consistent and easy-to-understand formulation for all metrics, which lowers the learning curve for non-experts and allows stakeholders to align interventions with their specific values and contextual considerations.
• Enables multi-stakeholder compromise by allowing users to assign customizable weights across multiple fairness objectives, reflecting diverse priorities rather than privileging a single notion of fairness.
• Demonstrated application across four real-world datasets, including the MEPS dataset for healthcare utilization, showing that adjusting fairness weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics.
• Highlights practical utility through case studies in judicial decision-making and healthcare, illustrating how the framework can inform the value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.
• Aims to bridge the gap between theoretical fairness research and practical deployment by offering a flexible and comprehensive tool for mitigating unequal treatment across sensitive attributes in AI applications.

Clinical Impact

This framework can profoundly impact clinical practice by guiding the development and deployment of fair AI systems, ensuring equitable access to care, accurate diagnostic predictions, and unbiased treatment recommendations across all patient demographics. It provides a practical, multi-stakeholder tool for clinicians, policymakers, and AI developers to explicitly define, measure, and optimize for fairness in healthcare AI, thereby reducing health disparities and building trust in AI-driven medical decisions.

Limitations

The abstract does not explicitly state specific limitations or caveats of the proposed framework or its application.

Future Directions

The abstract does not explicitly state specific future research directions, beyond its immediate goal of informing the practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.

Medical Domains

Keywords

Abstract

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.