2020arXiv (Cornell University)Open access

Machine Learning Fairness in Justice Systems: Base Rates, False\n Positives, and False Negatives

Jesse Russell

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Machine learning best practice statements have proliferated, but there is a\nlack of consensus on what the standards should be. For fairness standards in\nparticular, there is little guidance on how fairness might be achieved in\npractice. Specifically, fairness in errors (both false negatives and false\npositives) can pose a problem of how to set weights, how to make unavoidable\ntradeoffs, and how to judge models that present different kinds of errors\nacross racial groups. This paper considers the consequences of having higher\nrates of false positives for one racial group and higher rates of false\nnegatives for another racial group. The paper examines how different errors in\njustice settings can present problems for machine learning applications, the\nlimits of computation for resolving tradeoffs, and how solutions might have to\nbe crafted through courageous conversations with leadership, line workers,\nstakeholders, and impacted communities.\n

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Machine learning best practice statements have proliferated, but there is a\nlack of consensus on what the standards should be. For fairness standards in\nparticular, there is little guidance on how fairness might be achieved in\npractice. Specifically, fairness in errors (both false negatives and false\npositives) can pose a problem of how to set weights, how to make unavoidable\ntradeoffs, and how to judge models that present different kinds of errors\nacross racial groups. This paper considers the consequences of having higher\nrates of false positives for one racial group and higher rates of false\nnegatives for another racial group. The paper examines how different errors in\njustice settings can present problems for machine learning applications, the\nlimits of computation for resolving tradeoffs, and how solutions might have to\nbe crafted through courageous conversations with leadership, line workers,\nstakeholders, and impacted communities.\n

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Machine learning best practice statements have proliferated, but there is a\nlack of consensus on what the standards should be. For fairness standards in\nparticular, there is little guidance on how fairness might be achieved in\npractice. Specifically, fairness in errors (both false negatives and false\npositives) can pose a problem of how to set weights, how to make unavoidable\ntradeoffs, and how to judge models that present different kinds of errors\nacross racial groups. This paper considers the consequences of having higher\nrates of false positives for one racial group and higher rates of false\nnegatives for another racial group. The paper examines how different errors in\njustice settings can present problems for machine learning applications, the\nlimits of computation for resolving tradeoffs, and how solutions might have to\nbe crafted through courageous conversations with leadership, line workers,\nstakeholders, and impacted communities.\n

Key concepts: False positive paradox, False positives and false negatives, True positive rate, Set (abstract data type), Economic Justice, Computer science, Social psychology, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Machine Learning Fairness in Justice Systems: Base Rates, False\n Positives, and False Negatives — Research Paper | ScholarLens