Group fairness is measured via parity of quantitative metrics across different protected demographic groups. In this paper, we investigate the problem of reliably assessing group fairness metrics when labeled examples are few but unlabeled examples are plentiful. We propose a general Bayesian framework that can augment labeled data with unlabeled data to produce more accurate and lower-variance estimates compared to methods based on labeled data alone. Our approach estimates calibrated scores (for unlabeled examples) of each group using a hierarchical latent variable model conditioned on labeled examples. This in turn allows for inference of posterior distributions for an array of group fairness metrics with a notion of uncertainty. We demonstrate that our approach leads to significant and consistent reductions in estimation error across multiple well-known fairness datasets, sensitive attributes, and predictive models. The results clearly show the benefits of using both unlabeled data and Bayesian inference in assessing whether a prediction model is fair or not.

User modeling techniques profile users' latent characteristics (e.g., preference) from their observed behaviors, and play a crucial role in decision-making.

Group fairness is measured via parity of quantitative metrics across different protected demographic groups. In this paper, we investigate the problem of reliably assessing group fairness metrics when labeled examples are few but unlabeled examples are plentiful. We propose a general Bayesian framework that can augment labeled data with unlabeled data to produce more accurate and lower-variance estimates compared to methods based on labeled data alone. Our approach estimates calibrated scores (for unlabeled examples) of each group using a hierarchical latent variable model conditioned on labeled examples. This in turn allows for inference of posterior distributions for an array of group fairness metrics with a notion of uncertainty.

Group fairness metrics are an established way of assessing the fairness of prediction-based decision-making systems. However, these metrics are still insufficiently linked to philosophical theories, and their moral meaning is often unclear. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive framework for group fairness metrics, which links them to more theories of distributive justice. The different group fairness metrics differ in their choices about how to measure the benefit or harm of a decision for the affected individuals, and what moral claims to benefits are assumed. Our unifying framework reveals the normative choices associated with standard group fairness metrics and allows an interpretation of their moral substance. In addition, this broader view provides a structure for the expansion of standard fairness metrics that we find in the literature. This expansion allows addressing several criticisms of standard group fairness metrics, specifically: (1) they are parity-based, i.e., they demand some form of equality between groups, which may sometimes be detrimental to marginalized groups; (2) they only compare decisions across groups but not the resulting consequences for these groups; and (3) the full breadth of the distributive justice literature is not sufficiently represented.

In recent years, several metrics have been developed for evaluating group fairness of rankings. Given that these metrics were developed with different application contexts and ranking algorithms in mind, it is not straightforward which metric to choose for a given scenario. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive comparative analysis of existing group fairness metrics developed in the context of fair ranking. By virtue of their diverse application contexts, we argue that such a comparative analysis is not straightforward. Hence, we take an axiomatic approach whereby we design a set of thirteen properties for group fairness metrics that consider different ranking settings. A metric can then be selected depending on whether it satisfies all or a subset of these properties. We apply these properties on eleven existing group fairness metrics, and through both empirical and theoretical results we demonstrate that most of these metrics only satisfy a small subset of the proposed properties. These findings highlight limitations of existing metrics, and provide insights into how to evaluate and interpret different fairness metrics in practical deployment. The proposed properties can also assist practitioners in selecting appropriate metrics for evaluating fairness in a specific application.