Bibliographic record
Abstract
AI and machine learning tools are being used with increasing frequency for decision making in domains that affect peoples' lives such as employment, education, policing and loan approval. These uses raise concerns about biases of algorithmic discrimination and have motivated the development of fairness-aware machine learning. However, existing fairness approaches are based solely on attributes of individuals. In many cases, discrimination is much more complex, and taking into account the social, organizational, and other connections between individuals is important. We introduce new notions of fairness that are able to capture the relational structure in a domain. We use first-order logic to provide a flexible and expressive language for specifying complex relational patterns of discrimination. Furthermore, we extend an existing statistical relational learning framework, probabilistic soft logic (PSL), to incorporate our definition of relational fairness. We refer to this fairness-aware framework FairPSL. FairPSL makes use of the logical definitions of fairnesss but also supports a probabilistic interpretation. In particular, we show how to perform maximum a posteriori(MAP) inference by exploiting probabilistic dependencies within the domain while avoiding violation of fairness guarantees. Preliminary empirical evaluation shows that we are able to make both accurate and fair decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".