Summary of A New Paradigm For Counterfactual Reasoning in Fairness and Recourse, by Lucius E.j. Bynum et al.
A New Paradigm for Counterfactual Reasoning in Fairness and Recourse
by Lucius E.J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich
First submitted to arxiv on: 25 Jan 2024
Categories
- Main: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
- Secondary: Computers and Society (cs.CY); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary The paper introduces a new paradigm for counterfactual reasoning in artificial intelligence (AI) auditing and understanding. Building upon traditional interventional counterfactuals, this approach uses backtracking counterfactuals to explore alternate initial conditions while holding legally-protected characteristics fixed. This allows addressing social concerns without relying on demographic interventions. The authors ask what would explain a counterfactual outcome for an individual as they are or could be, rather than imagining hypothetical interventions on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, etc. This framework enables a more nuanced understanding of AI systems and their impact on society. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting better at making decisions, but it’s not perfect. Sometimes, we want to know what would have happened if something was different. For example, “What if I were a different race?” or “What if I had a different gender?” Traditionally, people used “interventions” – like imagining changing someone’s race – to answer these questions. But this approach has some limitations. Instead, the authors propose a new way of thinking called “backtracking counterfactuals”. They ask what would explain a different outcome for you as you are or could be. This new framework helps us understand AI systems better and how they might affect society. |
