arXiv preprint ·
Causal Humility: Governing the Authority of Fairness Claims Under Causal Uncertainty
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
AI systems increasingly shape consequential decisions in employment, lending, healthcare, and public services, making fairness an important problem for auditing and governance. Fairness assessment often requires more than identifying disparities in outcomes; it also requires understanding how those disparities arise. Causal approaches to algorithmic fairness address this explanatory problem by representing pathways through which protected attributes and other factors may influence outcomes. Yet causal reasoning in sociotechnical systems remains uncertain: relevant confounders may be unobserved, causal directions contested, and conclusions sensitive to modeling assumptions and representational choices. We introduce causal humility as a governance framework for managing the relationship between epistemic uncertainty and causal authority. Drawing on causal fairness research, epistemology, political philosophy, and science and technology studies, causal humility has four requirements: making consequential assumptions and omissions visible; preserving contestability across defensible causal accounts; recognizing indeterminacy as a legitimate analytical outcome; and maintaining proportionality between evidentiary support and institutional authority or action. We operationalize these requirements through Causal Cards, a documentation artifact for recording the causal basis, assumptions, omissions, model dependence, and governance implications of fairness claims. Using the UCI Adult dataset as a worked epistemic demonstration, we show how different causal discovery procedures applied to the same observational data render fairness-relevant pathways visible, absent, or unresolved. Causal humility treats such disagreement as information about the limits of what can responsibly be claimed and the authority those claims should carry.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
When LLMs Manipulate: Measuring Behavioral, Social, and Temporal Effects
When Care Expands and Control Declines: Understanding Digital Privacy in End-of-Life Care
Evaluating LLM-Generated Feedback on Handwritten Mathematics: Feedback Quality and Subsequent Exam Performance
Conditional information Retrieval for Longitudinal Survey Harmonisation
The GenAI Who Knew Too Little: Revisiting Transactive Memory Systems in Human GenAI Collaboration
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.