Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSurvey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions
308
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Karima Makhlouf
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Addressing the problem of fairness is crucial to safely use machine learning algorithms to support decisions with a critical impact on peoples lives such as job hiring, child maltreatment, disease diagnosis, loan granting, etc. Several notions of fairness have been defined and examined in the past decade, such as, statistical parity and equalized odds. The most recent fairness notions, however, are causal-based and reflect the now widely accepted idea that using causality is necessary to appropriately address the problem of fairness. This paper examines an exhaustive list of causal-based fairness notions, in particular their applicability in real-world scenarios. As the majority of causal-based fairness notions are defined in terms of non-observable quantities (e.g. interventions and counterfactuals), their applicability depends heavily on the identifiability of those quantities from observational data. In this paper, we compile the most relevant identifiability criteria for the problem of fairness from the extensive literature on identifiability theory. These criteria are then used to decide about the applicability of causal-based fairness notions in concrete discrimination scenarios.
rate research
Read More
ML-based predictive systems are increasingly used to support decisions with a critical impact on individuals lives such as college admission, job hiring, child custody, criminal risk assessment, etc. As a result, fairness emerged as an important requirement to guarantee that predictive systems do not discriminate against specific individuals or entire sub-populations, in particular, minorities. Given the inherent subjectivity of viewing the concept of fairness, several notions of fairness have been introduced in the literature. This paper is a survey of fairness notions that, unlike other surveys in the literature, addresses the question of which notion of fairness is most suited to a given real-world scenario and why?. Our attempt to answer this question consists in (1) identifying the set of fairness-related characteristics of the real-world scenario at hand, (2) analyzing the behavior of each fairness notion, and then (3) fitting these two elements to recommend the most suitable fairness notion in every specific setup. The results are summarized in a decision diagram that can be used by practitioners and policy makers to navigate the relatively large catalogue of fairness notions.
If our models are used in new or unexpected cases, do we know if they will make fair predictions? Previously, researchers developed ways to debias a model for a single problem domain. However, this is often not how models are trained and used in practice. For example, labels and demographics (sensitive attributes) are often hard to observe, resulting in auxiliary or synthetic data to be used for training, and proxies of the sensitive attribute to be used for evaluation of fairness. A model trained for one setting may be picked up and used in many others, particularly as is common with pre-training and cloud APIs. Despite the pervasiveness of these complexities, remarkably little work in the fairness literature has theoretically examined these issues. We frame all of these settings as domain adaptation problems: how can we use what we have learned in a source domain to debias in a new target domain, without directly debiasing on the target domain as if it is a completely new problem? We offer new theoretical guarantees of improving fairness across domains, and offer a modeling approach to transfer to data-sparse target domains. We give empirical results validating the theory and showing that these modeling approaches can improve fairness metrics with less data.
The last few years have seen an explosion of academic and popular interest in algorithmic fairness. Despite this interest and the volume and velocity of work that has been produced recently, the fundamental science of fairness in machine learning is still in a nascent state. In March 2018, we convened a group of experts as part of a CCC visioning workshop to assess the state of the field, and distill the most promising research directions going forward. This report summarizes the findings of that workshop. Along the way, it surveys recent theoretical work in the field and points towards promising directions for research.
Algorithmic fairness has aroused considerable interests in data mining and machine learning communities recently. So far the existing research has been mostly focusing on the development of quantitative metrics to measure algorithm disparities across different protected groups, and approaches for adjusting the algorithm output to reduce such disparities. In this paper, we propose to study the problem of identification of the source of model disparities. Unlike existing interpretation methods which typically learn feature importance, we consider the causal relationships among feature variables and propose a novel framework to decompose the disparity into the sum of contributions from fairness-aware causal paths, which are paths linking the sensitive attribute and the final predictions, on the graph. We also consider the scenario when the directions on certain edges within those paths cannot be determined. Our framework is also model agnostic and applicable to a variety of quantitative disparity measures. Empirical evaluations on both synthetic and real-world data sets are provided to show that our method can provide precise and comprehensive explanations to the model disparities.
In machine learning (ML) applications, unfair predictions may discriminate against a minority group. Most existing approaches for fair machine learning (FML) treat fairness as a constraint or a penalization term in the optimization of a ML model, which does not lead to the discovery of the complete landscape of the trade-offs among learning accuracy and fairness metrics, and does not integrate fairness in a meaningful way. Recently, we have introduced a new paradigm for FML based on Stochastic Multi-Objective Optimization (SMOO), where accuracy and fairness metrics stand as conflicting objectives to be optimized simultaneously. The entire trade-offs range is defined as the Pareto front of the SMOO problem, which can then be efficiently computed using stochastic-gradient type algorithms. SMOO also allows defining and computing new meaningful predictors for FML, a novel one being the Sharpe predictor that we introduce and explore in this paper, and which gives the highest ratio of accuracy-to-unfairness. Inspired from SMOO in finance, the Sharpe predictor for FML provides the highest prediction return (accuracy) per unit of prediction risk (unfairness).
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
