Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userInherent Trade-offs in the Fair Allocation of Treatments
75
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Yuzi He
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Explicit and implicit bias clouds human judgement, leading to discriminatory treatment of minority groups. A fundamental goal of algorithmic fairness is to avoid the pitfalls in human judgement by learning policies that improve the overall outcomes while providing fair treatment to protected classes. In this paper, we propose a causal framework that learns optimal intervention policies from data subject to fairness constraints. We define two measures of treatment bias and infer best treatment assignment that minimizes the bias while optimizing overall outcome. We demonstrate that there is a dilemma of balancing fairness and overall benefit; however, allowing preferential treatment to protected classes in certain circumstances (affirmative action) can dramatically improve the overall benefit while also preserving fairness. We apply our framework to data containing student outcomes on standardized tests and show how it can be used to design real-world policies that fairly improve student test scores. Our framework provides a principled way to learn fair treatment policies in real-world settings.
rate research
Read More
Healthcare programs such as Medicaid provide crucial services to vulnerable populations, but due to limited resources, many of the individuals who need these services the most languish on waiting lists. Survival models, e.g. the Cox proportional hazards model, can potentially improve this situation by predicting individuals levels of need, which can then be used to prioritize the waiting lists. Providing care to those in need can prevent institutionalization for those individuals, which both improves quality of life and reduces overall costs. While the benefits of such an approach are clear, care must be taken to ensure that the prioritization process is fair or independent of demographic information-based harmful stereotypes. In this work, we develop multiple fairness definitions for survival models and corresponding fair Cox proportional hazards models to ensure equitable allocation of healthcare resources. We demonstrate the utility of our methods in terms of fairness and predictive accuracy on two publicly available survival datasets.
Artificial intelligence algorithms have been used to enhance a wide variety of products and services, including assisting human decision making in high-stakes contexts. However, these algorithms are complex and have trade-offs, notably between prediction accuracy and fairness to population subgroups. This makes it hard for designers to understand algorithms and design products or services in a way that respects users goals, values, and needs. We proposed a method to help designers and users explore algorithms, visualize their trade-offs, and select algorithms with trade-offs consistent with their goals and needs. We evaluated our method on the problem of predicting criminal defendants likelihood to re-offend through (i) a large-scale Amazon Mechanical Turk experiment, and (ii) in-depth interviews with domain experts. Our evaluations show that our method can help designers and users of these systems better understand and navigate algorithmic trade-offs. This paper contributes a new way of providing designers the ability to understand and control the outcomes of algorithmic systems they are creating.
Fairness-aware learning involves designing algorithms that do not discriminate with respect to some sensitive feature (e.g., race or gender). Existing work on the problem operates under the assumption that the sensitive feature available in ones training sample is perfectly reliable. This assumption may be violated in many real-world cases: for example, respondents to a survey may choose to conceal or obfuscate their group identity out of fear of potential discrimination. This poses the question of whether one can still learn fair classifiers given noisy sensitive features. In this paper, we answer the question in the affirmative: we show that if one measures fairness using the mean-difference score, and sensitive features are subject to noise from the mutually contaminated learning model, then owing to a simple identity we only need to change the desired fairness-tolerance. The requisite tolerance can be estimated by leveraging existing noise-rate estimators from the label noise literature. We finally show that our procedure is empirically effective on two case-studies involving sensitive feature censoring.
We provide a setting and a general approach to fair online learning with stochastic sensitive and non-sensitive contexts. The setting is a repeated game between the Player and Nature, where at each stage both pick actions based on the contexts. Inspired by the notion of unawareness, we assume that the Player can only access the non-sensitive context before making a decision, while we discuss both cases of Nature accessing the sensitive contexts and Nature unaware of the sensitive contexts. Adapting Blackwells approachability theory to handle the case of an unknown contexts distribution, we provide a general necessary and sufficient condition for learning objectives to be compatible with some fairness constraints. This condition is instantiated on (group-wise) no-regret and (group-wise) calibration objectives, and on demographic parity as an additional constraint. When the objective is not compatible with the constraint, the provided framework permits to characterise the optimal trade-off between the two.
Settings such as lending and policing can be modeled by a centralized agent allocating a resource (loans or police officers) amongst several groups, in order to maximize some objective (loans given that are repaid or criminals that are apprehended). Often in such problems fairness is also a concern. A natural notion of fairness, based on general principles of equality of opportunity, asks that conditional on an individual being a candidate for the resource, the probability of actually receiving it is approximately independent of the individuals group. In lending this means that equally creditworthy individuals in different racial groups have roughly equal chances of receiving a loan. In policing it means that two individuals committing the same crime in different districts would have roughly equal chances of being arrested. We formalize this fairness notion for allocation problems and investigate its algorithmic consequences. Our main technical results include an efficient learning algorithm that converges to an optimal fair allocation even when the frequency of candidates (creditworthy individuals or criminals) in each group is unknown. The algorithm operates in a censored feedback model in which only the number of candidates who received the resource in a given allocation can be observed, rather than the true number of candidates. This models the fact that we do not learn the creditworthiness of individuals we do not give loans to nor learn about crimes committed if the police presence in a district is low. As an application of our framework, we consider the predictive policing problem. The learning algorithm is trained on arrest data gathered from its own deployments on previous days, resulting in a potential feedback loop that our algorithm provably overcomes. We empirically investigate the performance of our algorithm on the Philadelphia Crime Incidents dataset.
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
