Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCan Active Learning Preemptively Mitigate Fairness Issues?
220
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Fr\\'ed\\'eric Branchaud-Charron
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Dataset bias is one of the prevailing causes of unfairness in machine learning. Addressing fairness at the data collection and dataset preparation stages therefore becomes an essential part of training fairer algorithms. In particular, active learning (AL) algorithms show promise for the task by drawing importance to the most informative training samples. However, the effect and interaction between existing AL algorithms and algorithmic fairness remain under-explored. In this paper, we study whether models trained with uncertainty-based AL heuristics such as BALD are fairer in their decisions with respect to a protected class than those trained with identically independently distributed (i.i.d.) sampling. We found a significant improvement on predictive parity when using BALD, while also improving accuracy compared to i.i.d. sampling. We also explore the interaction of algorithmic fairness methods such as gradient reversal (GRAD) and BALD. We found that, while addressing different fairness issues, their interaction further improves the results on most benchmarks and metrics we explored.
rate research
Read More
Recent empirical and theoretical studies have shown that many learning algorithms -- from linear regression to neural networks -- can have test performance that is non-monotonic in quantities such the sample size and model size. This striking phenomenon, often referred to as double descent, has raised questions of if we need to re-think our current understanding of generalization. In this work, we study whether the double-descent phenomenon can be avoided by using optimal regularization. Theoretically, we prove that for certain linear regression models with isotropic data distribution, optimally-tuned $ell_2$ regularization achieves monotonic test performance as we grow either the sample size or the model size. We also demonstrate empirically that optimally-tuned $ell_2$ regularization can mitigate double descent for more general models, including neural networks. Our results suggest that it may also be informative to study the test risk scalings of various algorithms in the context of appropriately tuned regularization.
The underlying assumption of many machine learning algorithms is that the training data and test data are drawn from the same distributions. However, the assumption is often violated in real world due to the sample selection bias between the training and test data. Previous research works focus on reweighing biased training data to match the test data and then building classification models on the reweighed training data. However, how to achieve fairness in the built classification models is under-explored. In this paper, we propose a framework for robust and fair learning under sample selection bias. Our framework adopts the reweighing estimation approach for bias correction and the minimax robust estimation approach for achieving robustness on prediction accuracy. Moreover, during the minimax optimization, the fairness is achieved under the worst case, which guarantees the models fairness on test data. We further develop two algorithms to handle sample selection bias when test data is both available and unavailable. We conduct experiments on two real-world datasets and the experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness in terms of both utility and fairness metrics.
Many technical approaches have been proposed for ensuring that decisions made by machine learning systems are fair, but few of these proposals have been stress-tested in real-world systems. This paper presents an example of one teams approach to the challenge of applying algorithmic fairness approaches to complex production systems within the context of a large technology company. We discuss how we disentangle normative questions of product and policy design (like, how should the system trade off between different stakeholders interests and needs?) from empirical questions of system implementation (like, is the system achieving the desired tradeoff in practice?). We also present an approach for answering questions of the latter sort, which allows us to measure how machine learning systems and human labelers are making these tradeoffs across different relevant groups. We hope our experience integrating fairness tools and approaches into large-scale and complex production systems will be useful to other practitioners facing similar challenges, and illuminating to academics and researchers looking to better address the needs of practitioners.
Growing use of machine learning in policy and social impact settings have raised concerns for fairness implications, especially for racial minorities. These concerns have generated considerable interest among machine learning and artificial intelligence researchers, who have developed new methods and established theoretical bounds for improving fairness, focusing on the source data, regularization and model training, or post-hoc adjustments to model scores. However, little work has studied the practical trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in real-world settings to understand how these bounds and methods translate into policy choices and impact on society. Our empirical study fills this gap by investigating the impact of mitigating disparities on accuracy, focusing on the common context of using machine learning to inform benefit allocation in resource-constrained programs across education, mental health, criminal justice, and housing safety. Here we describe applied work in which we find fairness-accuracy trade-offs to be negligible in practice. In each setting studied, explicitly focusing on achieving equity and using our proposed post-hoc disparity mitigation methods, fairness was substantially improved without sacrificing accuracy. This observation was robust across policy contexts studied, scale of resources available for intervention, time, and relative size of the protected groups. These empirical results challenge a commonly held assumption that reducing disparities either requires accepting an appreciable drop in accuracy or the development of novel, complex methods, making reducing disparities in these applications more practical.
Machine learning algorithms are vulnerable to poisoning attacks, where a fraction of the training data is manipulated to degrade the algorithms performance. We show that current approaches, which typically assume that regularization hyperparameters remain constant, lead to an overly pessimistic view of the algorithms robustness and of the impact of regularization. We propose a novel optimal attack formulation that considers the effect of the attack on the hyperparameters, modelling the attack as a emph{minimax bilevel optimization problem}. This allows to formulate optimal attacks, select hyperparameters and evaluate robustness under worst case conditions. We apply this formulation to logistic regression using $L_2$ regularization, empirically show the limitations of previous strategies and evidence the benefits of using $L_2$ regularization to dampen the effect of poisoning attacks.
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
