Comparison-based preference learning has become central to the alignment of AI models with human preferences. However, these methods may behave counterintuitively. After empirically observing that, when accounting for a preference for response $y$ over $z$, the model may actually decrease the probability (and reward) of generating $y$ (an observation also made by others), this paper investigates the root causes of (non) monotonicity, for a general comparison-based preference learning framework that subsumes Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Generalized Preference Optimization (GPO) and Generalized Bradley-Terry (GBT). Under mild assumptions, we prove that such methods still satisfy what we call local pairwise monotonicity. We also provide a bouquet of formalizations of monotonicity, and identify sufficient conditions for their guarantee, thereby providing a toolbox to evaluate how prone learning models are to monotonicity violations. These results clarify the limitations of current methods and provide guidance for developing more trustworthy preference learning algorithms.

In this paper, we study the problem of establishing the accountability and fairness of transparent machine learning models through monotonicity. Although there have been numerous studies on individual monotonicity, pairwise monotonicity is often overlooked in the existing literature. This paper studies transparent neural networks in the presence of three types of monotonicity: individual monotonicity, weak pairwise monotonicity, and strong pairwise monotonicity. As a means of achieving monotonicity while maintaining transparency, we propose the monotonic groves of neural additive models. As a result of empirical examples, we demonstrate that monotonicity is often violated in practice and that monotonic groves of neural additive models are transparent, accountable, and fair.

Algorithm fairness in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) is essential for a better society. As the foundational axiom of social mechanisms, fairness consists of multiple facets. Although the machine learning (ML) community has focused on intersectionality as a matter of statistical parity, especially in discrimination issues, an emerging body of literature addresses another facet -- monotonicity. Based on domain expertise, monotonicity plays a vital role in numerous fairness-related areas, where violations could misguide human decisions and lead to disastrous consequences. In this paper, we first systematically evaluate the significance of applying monotonic neural additive models (MNAMs), which use a fairness-aware ML algorithm to enforce both individual and pairwise monotonicity principles, for the fairness of AI ethics and society. We have found, through a hybrid method of theoretical reasoning, simulation, and extensive empirical analysis, that considering monotonicity axioms is essential in all areas of fairness, including criminology, education, health care, and finance. Our research contributes to the interdisciplinary research at the interface of AI ethics, explainable AI (XAI), and human-computer interactions (HCIs). By evidencing the catastrophic consequences if monotonicity is not met, we address the significance of monotonicity requirements in AI applications. Furthermore, we demonstrate that MNAMs are an effective fairness-aware ML approach by imposing monotonicity restrictions integrating human intelligence.