Non-Comparative Fairness for Human-Auditing and Its Relation to
  Traditional Fairness Notions
  Bias evaluation in machine-learning based services (MLS) based on traditional
algorithmic fairness notions that rely on comparative principles is practically
difficult, making it necessary to rely on human auditor feedback. However, in
spite of taking rigorous training on various comparative fairness notions,
human auditors are known to disagree on various aspects of fairness notions in
practice, making it difficult to collect reliable feedback. This paper offers a
paradigm shift to the domain of algorithmic fairness via proposing a new
fairness notion based on the principle of non-comparative justice. In contrary
to traditional fairness notions where the outcomes of two individuals/groups
are compared, our proposed notion compares the MLS' outcome with a desired
outcome for each input. This desired outcome naturally describes a human
auditor's expectation, and can be easily used to evaluate MLS on crowd-auditing
platforms. We show that any MLS can be deemed fair from the perspective of
comparative fairness (be it in terms of individual fairness, statistical
parity, equal opportunity or calibration) if it is non-comparatively fair with
respect to a fair auditor. We also show that the converse holds true in the
context of individual fairness. Given that such an evaluation relies on the
trustworthiness of the auditor, we also present an approach to identify fair
and reliable auditors by estimating their biases with respect to a given set of
sensitive attributes, as well as quantify the uncertainty in the estimation of
biases within a given MLS. Furthermore, all of the above results are also
validated on COMPAS, German credit and Adult Census Income datasets.
