A particularly problematic form of distribution shift comes from embedded power structures in data collection.

A key value proposition of machine learning is generalizability: the same methods and model architecture should be able to work across different domains and different contexts. While powerful, this generalization can sometimes go too far, and miss the importance of the specifics. In this work, we look at how fair machine learning has often treated as interchangeable the identity axis along which discrimination occurs. In other words, racism is measured and mitigated the same way as sexism, as ableism, as ageism. Disciplines outside of computer science have pointed out both the similarities and differences between these different forms of oppression, and in this work we draw out the implications for fair machine learning. While certainly not all aspects of fair machine learning need to be tailored to the specific form of oppression, there is a pressing need for greater attention to such specificity than is currently evident. Ultimately, context specificity can deepen our understanding of how to build more fair systems, widen our scope to include currently overlooked harms, and, almost paradoxically, also help to narrow our scope and counter the fear of an infinite number of group-specific methods of analysis.

As the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) continues to prioritize fairness and the concern for historically marginalized communities, the importance of intersectionality in AI research has gained significant recognition. However, few studies provide practical guidance on how researchers can effectively incorporate intersectionality into critical praxis. In response, this paper presents a comprehensive framework grounded in critical reflexivity as intersectional praxis. Operationalizing intersectionality within the AI/DS (Artificial Intelligence/Data Science) pipeline, Quantitative Intersectional Data (QUINTA) is introduced as a methodological paradigm that challenges conventional and superficial research habits, particularly in data-centric processes, to identify and mitigate negative impacts such as the inadvertent marginalization caused by these practices. The framework centers researcher reflexivity to call attention to the AI researchers' power in creating and analyzing AI/DS artifacts through data-centric approaches. To illustrate the effectiveness of QUINTA, we provide a reflexive AI/DS researcher demonstration utilizing the \#metoo movement as a case study. Note: This paper was accepted as a poster presentation at Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) Conference in 2023.

Intersectionality has profoundly influenced research and political action by revealing how interconnected systems of privilege and oppression influence lived experiences, yet its integration into algorithmic fairness research remains limited. Existing approaches often rely on single - axis or formal subgroup frameworks that risk oversimplifying social realities and neglecting structural inequalities. We propose Substantive Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness, extending Green's (2022) notion of substantive algorithmic fairness with insights from intersectional feminist theory. Buil ding on this foundation, we introduce ten desiderata within the ROOF methodology to guide the design, assessment, and deployment of algorithmic systems in ways that address systemic inequities while mitigating harms to intersectionally marginalized communi ties . Rather than prescribing fixed operationalizations, these desiderata encourage reflection on assumptions of neutrality, the use of protect ed attributes, the inclusion of multiply marginalized groups, and enhancing algorithmic systems' potential. Our a pproach emphasizes that fairness cannot be separated from social context, and that in some cases, principled non - deployment may be necessary. By bridging computational and social science perspectives, we provide actionable guidance for more equitable, incl usive, and context - sensitive intersectional algorithmic practices.

A particularly problematic form of distribution shift comes from embedded power structures in data collection.

Machine learning (ML) has become a go-to solution for improving how we use, experience, and interact with technology (and the world around us). Unfortunately, studies have repeatedly shown that machine learning technologies may not provide adequate support for societal identities and experiences. Intersectionality is a sociological framework that provides a mechanism for explicitly considering complex social identities, focusing on social justice and power. While the framework of intersectionality can support the development of technologies that acknowledge and support all members of society, it has been adopted and adapted in ways that are not always true to its foundations, thereby weakening its potential for impact. To support the appropriate adoption and use of intersectionality for more equitable technological outcomes, we amplify the foundational intersectionality scholarship--Crenshaw, Combahee, and Collins (three C's), to create a socially relevant preliminary framework in developing machine-learning solutions. We use this framework to evaluate and report on the (mis)alignments of intersectionality application in machine learning literature.

The biases exhibited by Text-to-Image (TTI) models are often treated as if they are independent, but in reality, they may be deeply interrelated. Addressing bias along one dimension, such as ethnicity or age, can inadvertently influence another dimension, like gender, either mitigating or exacerbating existing disparities. Understanding these interdependencies is crucial for designing fairer generative models, yet measuring such effects quantitatively remains a challenge. In this paper, we aim to address these questions by introducing BiasConnect, a novel tool designed to analyze and quantify bias interactions in TTI models. Our approach leverages a counterfactual-based framework to generate pairwise causal graphs that reveals the underlying structure of bias interactions for the given text prompt. Additionally, our method provides empirical estimates that indicate how other bias dimensions shift toward or away from an ideal distribution when a given bias is modified. Our estimates have a strong correlation (+0.69) with the interdependency observations post bias mitigation. We demonstrate the utility of BiasConnect for selecting optimal bias mitigation axes, comparing different TTI models on the dependencies they learn, and understanding the amplification of intersectional societal biases in TTI models.

We address the critical issue of biased algorithms and unfair rankings, which have permeated various sectors, including search engines, recommendation systems, and workforce management. These biases can lead to discriminatory outcomes in a data-driven world, especially against marginalized and underrepresented groups. Efforts towards responsible data science and responsible artificial intelligence aim to mitigate these biases and promote fairness, diversity, and transparency. However, most fairness-aware ranking methods singularly focus on protected attributes such as race, gender, or socio-economic status, neglecting the intersectionality of these attributes, i.e., the interplay between multiple social identities. Understanding intersectionality is crucial to ensure that existing inequalities are not preserved by fair rankings. We offer a description of the main ways to incorporate intersectionality in fair ranking systems through practical examples and provide a comparative overview of existing literature and a synoptic table summarizing the various methodologies. Our analysis highlights the need for intersectionality to attain fairness, while also emphasizing that fairness, alone, does not necessarily imply intersectionality.

A yet unmet challenge in algorithmic fairness is the problem of intersectionality, that is, achieving fairness across the intersection of multiple groups -- and verifying that such fairness has been attained. Because intersectional groups tend to be small, verifying whether a model is fair raises statistical as well as moral-methodological challenges. This paper (1) elucidates the problem of intersectionality in algorithmic fairness, (2) develops desiderata to clarify the challenges underlying the problem and guide the search for potential solutions, (3) illustrates the desiderata and potential solutions by sketching a proposal using simple hypothesis testing, and (4) evaluates, partly empirically, this proposal against the proposed desiderata.

In medical settings, it is critical that all who are in need of care are correctly heard and understood. When this is not the case due to prejudices a listener has, the speaker is experiencing \emph{testimonial injustice}, which, building upon recent work, we quantify by the presence of several categories of unjust vocabulary in medical notes. In this paper, we use FCI, a causal discovery method, to study the degree to which certain demographic features could lead to marginalization (e.g., age, gender, and race) by way of contributing to testimonial injustice. To achieve this, we review physicians' notes for each patient, where we identify occurrences of unjust vocabulary, along with the demographic features present, and use causal discovery to build a Structural Causal Model (SCM) relating those demographic features to testimonial injustice. We analyze and discuss the resulting SCMs to show the interaction of these factors and how they influence the experience of injustice. Despite the potential presence of some confounding variables, we observe how one contributing feature can make a person more prone to experiencing another contributor of testimonial injustice. There is no single root of injustice and thus intersectionality cannot be ignored. These results call for considering more than singular or equalized attributes of who a person is when analyzing and improving their experiences of bias and injustice. This work is thus a first foray at using causal discovery to understand the nuanced experiences of patients in medical settings, and its insights could be used to guide design principles throughout healthcare, to build trust and promote better patient care.