Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTransparency Tools for Fairness in AI (Luskin)
85
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Aria Shahverdi
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We propose new tools for policy-makers to use when assessing and correcting fairness and bias in AI algorithms. The three tools are: - A new definition of fairness called controlled fairness with respect to choices of protected features and filters. The definition provides a simple test of fairness of an algorithm with respect to a dataset. This notion of fairness is suitable in cases where fairness is prioritized over accuracy, such as in cases where there is no ground truth data, only data labeled with past decisions (which may have been biased). - Algorithms for retraining a given classifier to achieve controlled fairness with respect to a choice of features and filters. Two algorithms are presented, implemented and tested. These algorithms require training two different models in two stages. We experiment with combinations of various types of models for the first and second stage and report on which combinations perform best in terms of fairness and accuracy. - Algorithms for adjusting model parameters to achieve a notion of fairness called classification parity. This notion of fairness is suitable in cases where accuracy is prioritized. Two algorithms are presented, one which assumes that protected features are accessible to the model during testing, and one which assumes protected features are not accessible during testing. We evaluate our tools on three different publicly available datasets. We find that the tools are useful for understanding various dimensions of bias, and that in practice the algorithms are effective in starkly reducing a given observed bias when tested on new data.
rate research
Read More
With the aim of building machine learning systems that incorporate standards of fairness and accountability, we explore explicit subgroup sample complexity bounds. The work is motivated by the observation that classifier predictions for real world datasets often demonstrate drastically different metrics, such as accuracy, when subdivided by specific sensitive variable subgroups. The reasons for these discrepancies are varied and not limited to the influence of mitigating variables, institutional bias, underlying population distributions as well as sampling bias. Among the numerous definitions of fairness that exist, we argue that at a minimum, principled ML practices should ensure that classification predictions are able to mirror the underlying sub-population distributions. However, as the number of sensitive variables increase, populations meeting at the intersectionality of these variables may simply not exist or may not be large enough to provide accurate samples for classification. In these increasingly likely scenarios, we make the case for human intervention and applying situational and individual definitions of fairness. In this paper we present lower bounds of subgroup sample complexity for metric-fair learning based on the theory of Probably Approximately Metric Fair Learning. We demonstrate that for a classifier to approach a definition of fairness in terms of specific sensitive variables, adequate subgroup population samples need to exist and the model dimensionality has to be aligned with subgroup population distributions. In cases where this is not feasible, we propose an approach using individual fairness definitions for achieving alignment. We look at two commonly explored UCI datasets under this lens and suggest human interventions for data collection for specific subgroups to achieve approximate individual fairness for linear hypotheses.
Most Fairness in AI research focuses on exposing biases in AI systems. A broader lens on fairness reveals that AI can serve a greater aspiration: rooting out societal inequities from their source. Specifically, we focus on inequities in health information, and aim to reduce bias in that domain using AI. The AI algorithms under the hood of search engines and social media, many of which are based on recommender systems, have an outsized impact on the quality of medical and health information online. Therefore, embedding bias detection and reduction into these recommender systems serving up medical and health content online could have an outsized positive impact on patient outcomes and wellbeing. In this position paper, we offer the following contributions: (1) we propose a novel framework of Fairness via AI, inspired by insights from medical education, sociology and antiracism; (2) we define a new term, bisinformation, which is related to, but distinct from, misinformation, and encourage researchers to study it; (3) we propose using AI to study, detect and mitigate biased, harmful, and/or false health information that disproportionately hurts minority groups in society; and (4) we suggest several pillars and pose several open problems in order to seed inquiry in this new space. While part (3) of this work specifically focuses on the health domain, the fundamental computer science advances and contributions stemming from research efforts in bias reduction and Fairness via AI have broad implications in all areas of society.
Fairness-aware learning is increasingly important in data mining. Discrimination prevention aims to prevent discrimination in the training data before it is used to conduct predictive analysis. In this paper, we focus on fair data generation that ensures the generated data is discrimination free. Inspired by generative adversarial networks (GAN), we present fairness-aware generative adversarial networks, called FairGAN, which are able to learn a generator producing fair data and also preserving good data utility. Compared with the naive fair data generation models, FairGAN further ensures the classifiers which are trained on generated data can achieve fair classification on real data. Experiments on a real dataset show the effectiveness of FairGAN.
We study the problem of learning fair prediction models for unseen test sets distributed differently from the train set. Stability against changes in data distribution is an important mandate for responsible deployment of models. The domain adaptation literature addresses this concern, albeit with the notion of stability limited to that of prediction accuracy. We identify sufficient conditions under which stable models, both in terms of prediction accuracy and fairness, can be learned. Using the causal graph describing the data and the anticipated shifts, we specify an approach based on feature selection that exploits conditional independencies in the data to estimate accuracy and fairness metrics for the test set. We show that for specific fairness definitions, the resulting model satisfies a form of worst-case optimality. In context of a healthcare task, we illustrate the advantages of the approach in making more equitable decisions.
Fairness concerns about algorithmic decision-making systems have been mainly focused on the outputs (e.g., the accuracy of a classifier across individuals or groups). However, one may additionally be concerned with fairness in the inputs. In this paper, we propose and formulate two properties regarding the inputs of (features used by) a classifier. In particular, we claim that fair privacy (whether individuals are all asked to reveal the same information) and need-to-know (whether users are only asked for the minimal information required for the task at hand) are desirable properties of a decision system. We explore the interaction between these properties and fairness in the outputs (fair prediction accuracy). We show that for an optimal classifier these three properties are in general incompatible, and we explain what common properties of data make them incompatible. Finally we provide an algorithm to verify if the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset, and use the algorithm to show that this trade-off is common in real data.
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
