Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback
Maria Lerner, Florian E. Dorner, Elliott Ash, Naman Goel
Abstract
There is a growing body of work on learning from human feedback to align various aspects of machine learning systems with human values and preferences.We consider the setting of fairness in content moderation, in which human feedback is used to determine how two comments -referencing different sensitive attribute groups -should be treated in comparison to one another.With a novel dataset collected from Prolific and MTurk, we find significant gaps in fairness preferences depending on the race, age, political stance, educational level, and LGBTQ+ identity of annotators.We also demonstrate that demographics mentioned in text have a strong influence on how users perceive individual fairness in moderation.Further, we find that differences also exist in downstream classifiers trained to predict human preferences.Finally, we observe that an ensemble, giving equal weight to classifiers trained on annotations from different demographics, performs better for different demographic intersections; compared to a single classifier that gives equal weight to each annotation.Warning: This paper discusses examples of content that may be offensive or disturbing.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 2f8c6fe5-d82d-4794-aba7-3f554c3f8052Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on9
- Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee et al.ICML 2023 · 764 citations
- Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning ModelsMitchell L. Gordon, Michelle S. Lam, Joon Sung Park, Kayur Patel et al.CHI 2022 · 134 citations
- Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity AnnotationNitesh Goyal, Ian D. Kivlichan, Rachel Rosen, Lucy VassermanCSCW 2022 · 74 citations
- FuzzE: Fuzzy Fairness Evaluation of Offensive Language Classifiers on African-American EnglishAnthony RiosAAAI 2020 · 26 citations
- To Aggregate or Not? Learning with Separate Noisy LabelsJiaheng Wei, Zhaowei Zhu, Tianyi Luo, Ehsan Amid et al.KDD 2023 · 21 citations
Related papers
- Impact of Annotator Demographics on Sentiment Dataset LabelingYi Ding, Jacob You, Tonja-Katrin Machulla, Jennifer Jacobs et al.CSCW 2022 · 20 citations
- Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?Johannes Schäfer, Aidan Combs, Christopher Bagdon, Jiahui Li et al.ACL 2025 · 11 citations
- Being Right for Whose Right Reasons?Terne Sasha Thorn Jakobsen, Laura Cabello, Anders SøgaardACL 2023 · 8 citations
- Constructing a Fair Classifier with Generated Fair DataTaeuk Jang, Feng Zheng, Xiaoqian WangAAAI 2021 · 44 citations
- Perturbation Augmentation for Fairer NLPRebecca Qian, Candace Ross, Jude Fernandes, Eric Michael Smith et al.EMNLP 2022 · 54 citations
