Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAbstracting Fairness: Oracles, Metrics, and Interpretability
210
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
It is well understood that classification algorithms, for example, for deciding on loan applications, cannot be evaluated for fairness without taking context into account. We examine what can be learned from a fairness oracle equipped with an underlying understanding of ``true fairness. The oracle takes as input a (context, classifier) pair satisfying an arbitrary fairness definition, and accepts or rejects the pair according to whether the classifier satisfies the underlying fairness truth. Our principal conceptual result is an extraction procedure that learns the underlying truth; moreover, the procedure can learn an approximation to this truth given access to a weak form of the oracle. Since every ``truly fair classifier induces a coarse metric, in which those receiving the same decision are at distance zero from one another and those receiving different decisions are at distance one, this extraction process provides the basis for ensuring a rough form of metric fairness, also known as individual fairness. Our principal technical result is a higher fidelity extractor under a mild technical constraint on the weak oracles conception of fairness. Our framework permits the scenario in which many classifiers, with differing outcomes, may all be considered fair. Our results have implications for interpretablity -- a highly desired but poorly defined property of classification systems that endeavors to permit a human arbiter to reject classifiers deemed to be ``unfair or illegitimately derived.
rate research
Read More
To date, there has been no formal study of the statistical cost of interpretability in machine learning. As such, the discourse around potential trade-offs is often informal and misconceptions abound. In this work, we aim to initiate a formal study of these trade-offs. A seemingly insurmountable roadblock is the lack of any agreed upon definition of interpretability. Instead, we propose a shift in perspective. Rather than attempt to define interpretability, we propose to model the emph{act} of emph{enforcing} interpretability. As a starting point, we focus on the setting of empirical risk minimization for binary classification, and view interpretability as a constraint placed on learning. That is, we assume we are given a subset of hypothesis that are deemed to be interpretable, possibly depending on the data distribution and other aspects of the context. We then model the act of enforcing interpretability as that of performing empirical risk minimization over the set of interpretable hypotheses. This model allows us to reason about the statistical implications of enforcing interpretability, using known results in statistical learning theory. Focusing on accuracy, we perform a case analysis, explaining why one may or may not observe a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability when the restriction to interpretable classifiers does or does not come at the cost of some excess statistical risk. We close with some worked examples and some open problems, which we hope will spur further theoretical development around the tradeoffs involved in interpretability.
A common approach for feature selection is to examine the variable importance scores for a machine learning model, as a way to understand which features are the most relevant for making predictions. Given the significance of feature selection, it is crucial for the calculated importance scores to reflect reality. Falsely overestimating the importance of irrelevant features can lead to false discoveries, while underestimating importance of relevant features may lead us to discard important features, resulting in poor model performance. Additionally, black-box models like XGBoost provide state-of-the art predictive performance, but cannot be easily understood by humans, and thus we rely on variable importance scores or methods for explainability like SHAP to offer insight into their behavior. In this paper, we investigate the performance of variable importance as a feature selection method across various black-box and interpretable machine learning methods. We compare the ability of CART, Optimal Trees, XGBoost and SHAP to correctly identify the relevant subset of variables across a number of experiments. The results show that regardless of whether we use the native variable importance method or SHAP, XGBoost fails to clearly distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features. On the other hand, the interpretable methods are able to correctly and efficiently identify irrelevant features, and thus offer significantly better performance for feature selection.
We present a new data-driven model of fairness that, unlike existing static definitions of individual or group fairness is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities. We consider both a stochastic and an adversarial setting of our model. In the stochastic setting, we show that our framework can be naturally cast as a Markov Decision Process with stochastic losses, for which we give efficient vanishing regret algorithmic solutions. In the adversarial setting, we design efficient algorithms with competitive ratio guarantees. We also report the results of experiments with our algorithms and the stochastic framework on artificial datasets, to demonstrate their effectiveness empirically.
Decisions by Machine Learning (ML) models have become ubiquitous. Trusting these decisions requires understanding how algorithms take them. Hence interpretability methods for ML are an active focus of research. A central problem in this context is that both the quality of interpretability methods as well as trust in ML predictions are difficult to measure. Yet evaluations, comparisons and improvements of trust and interpretability require quantifiable measures. Here we propose a quantitative measure for the quality of interpretability methods. Based on that we derive a quantitative measure of trust in ML decisions. Building on previous work we propose to measure intuitive understanding of algorithmic decisions using the information transfer rate at which humans replicate ML model predictions. We provide empirical evidence from crowdsourcing experiments that the proposed metric robustly differentiates interpretability methods. The proposed metric also demonstrates the value of interpretability for ML assisted human decision making: in our experiments providing explanations more than doubled productivity in annotation tasks. However unbiased human judgement is critical for doctors, judges, policy makers and others. Here we derive a trust metric that identifies when human decisions are overly biased towards ML predictions. Our results complement existing qualitative work on trust and interpretability by quantifiable measures that can serve as objectives for further improving methods in this field of research.
We investigate the problem of online learning, which has gained significant attention in recent years due to its applicability in a wide range of fields from machine learning to game theory. Specifically, we study the online optimization of mixable loss functions in a dynamic environment. We introduce online mixture schemes that asymptotically achieves the performance of the best dynamic estimation sequence of the switching oracle with optimal regret redundancies. The best dynamic estimation sequence that we compete against is selected in hindsight with full observation of the loss functions and is allowed to select different optimal estimations in different time intervals (segments). We propose two mixtures in our work. Firstly, we propose a tractable polynomial time complexity algorithm that can achieve the optimal redundancy of the intractable brute force approach. Secondly, we propose an efficient logarithmic time complexity algorithm that can achieve the optimal redundancy up to a constant multiplicity gap. Our results are guaranteed to hold in a strong deterministic sense in an individual sequence manner.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
