4.2Standard
Two groups have different false-positive rates.
Explain a mitigation.
Choose two evaluations.
× Incorrect
Compare group and aggregate precision, recall, errors, thresholds, and business impact, then review candidate mitigations with stakeholders.
Detailed explanation
IncorrectHide group metrics to avoid concern
Impact and accountability are lost.
CorrectCompare aggregate and group precision, recall, errors, thresholds, and business impact
Tradeoffs are visible.
IncorrectAny decrease in overall accuracy is always unacceptable
Fairness and risk also matter.
CorrectTest constraints, reweighting, or threshold changes with legal and stakeholder review
Adoption is explainable.
Check official documentation
Compare the following points with the official documentation.
AWS公式AIF-C01 Domain 4.2の公平性指標、緩和策、影響評価を確認する。
Official references
What to confirm
公平性を単一の正解率で判断せず、各指標と利用影響の関係を説明できる。
Key points
- Fairness
- Tradeoff
- Mitigation
Notes
- Environment: AWS公式AIF-C01試験ガイドとAWS公式ドキュメントの確認
- Compare the definition with the AIF-C01 objective and the service documentation before applying it.
- Keep the concept separate from a particular answer choice or implementation step.
Foundation review
Fairness metric
A quantitative measure of outcome or error differences between groups.
Mitigation
A model, data, or process change intended to reduce an identified disparity.
Question IDAWS-AIF-465
EnvironmentAWS公式AIF-C01試験ガイドとAWS公式ドキュメントの確認
Last technical review2026-08-20
Report an error or rights issue