Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userQuantifying Infra-Marginality and Its Trade-off with Group Fairness
79
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Arpita Biswas
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In critical decision-making scenarios, optimizing accuracy can lead to a biased classifier, hence past work recommends enforcing group-based fairness metrics in addition to maximizing accuracy. However, doing so exposes the classifier to another kind of bias called infra-marginality. This refers to individual-level bias where some individuals/subgroups can be worse off than under simply optimizing for accuracy. For instance, a classifier implementing race-based parity may significantly disadvantage women of the advantaged race. To quantify this bias, we propose a general notion of $eta$-infra-marginality that can be used to evaluate the extent of this bias. We prove theoretically that, unlike other fairness metrics, infra-marginality does not have a trade-off with accuracy: high accuracy directly leads to low infra-marginality. This observation is confirmed through empirical analysis on multiple simulated and real-world datasets. Further, we find that maximizing group fairness often increases infra-marginality, suggesting the consideration of both group-level fairness and individual-level infra-marginality. However, measuring infra-marginality requires knowledge of the true distribution of individual-level outcomes correctly and explicitly. We propose a practical method to measure infra-marginality, and a simple algorithm to maximize group-wise accuracy and avoid infra-marginality.
rate research
Read More
Planning and reinforcement learning are two key approaches to sequential decision making. Multi-step approximate real-time dynamic programming, a recently successful algorithm class of which AlphaZero [Silver et al., 2018] is an example, combines both by nesting planning within a learning loop. However, the combination of planning and learning introduces a new question: how should we balance time spend on planning, learning and acting? The importance of this trade-off has not been explicitly studied before. We show that it is actually of key importance, with computational results indicating that we should neither plan too long nor too short. Conceptually, we identify a new spectrum of planning-learning algorithms which ranges from exhaustive search (long planning) to model-free RL (no planning), with optimal performance achieved midway.
Fairness in algorithmic decision-making processes is attracting increasing concern. When an algorithm is applied to human-related decision-making an estimator solely optimizing its predictive power can learn biases on the existing data, which motivates us the notion of fairness in machine learning. while several different notions are studied in the literature, little studies are done on how these notions affect the individuals. We demonstrate such a comparison between several policies induced by well-known fairness criteria, including the color-blind (CB), the demographic parity (DP), and the equalized odds (EO). We show that the EO is the only criterion among them that removes group-level disparity. Empirical studies on the social welfare and disparity of these policies are conducted.
Many interesting problems in the Internet industry can be framed as a two-sided marketplace problem. Examples include search applications and recommender systems showing people, jobs, movies, products, restaurants, etc. Incorporating fairness while building such systems is crucial and can have a deep social and economic impact (applications include job recommendations, recruiters searching for candidates, etc.). In this paper, we propose a definition and develop an end-to-end framework for achieving fairness while building such machine learning systems at scale. We extend prior work to develop an optimization framework that can tackle fairness constraints from both the source and destination sides of the marketplace, as well as dynamic aspects of the problem. The framework is flexible enough to adapt to different definitions of fairness and can be implemented in very large-scale settings. We perform simulations to show the efficacy of our approach.
We study fairness through the lens of cooperative multi-agent learning. Our work is motivated by empirical evidence that naive maximization of team reward yields unfair outcomes for individual team members. To address fairness in multi-agent contexts, we introduce team fairness, a group-based fairness measure for multi-agent learning. We then prove that it is possible to enforce team fairness during policy optimization by transforming the teams joint policy into an equivariant map. We refer to our multi-agent learning strategy as Fairness through Equivariance (Fair-E) and demonstrate its effectiveness empirically. We then introduce Fairness through Equivariance Regularization (Fair-ER) as a soft-constraint version of Fair-E and show that it reaches higher levels of utility than Fair-E and fairer outcomes than non-equivariant policies. Finally, we present novel findings regarding the fairness-utility trade-off in multi-agent settings; showing that the magnitude of the trade-off is dependent on agent skill level.
The overall performance or expected excess risk of an iterative machine learning algorithm can be decomposed into training error and generalization error. While the former is controlled by its convergence analysis, the latter can be tightly handled by algorithmic stability. The machine learning community has a rich history investigating convergence and stability separately. However, the question about the trade-off between these two quantities remains open. In this paper, we show that for any iterative algorithm at any iteration, the overall performance is lower bounded by the minimax statistical error over an appropriately chosen loss function class. This implies an important trade-off between convergence and stability of the algorithm -- a faster converging algorithm has to be less stable, and vice versa. As a direct consequence of this fundamental tradeoff, new convergence lower bounds can be derived for classes of algorithms constrained with different stability bounds. In particular, when the loss function is convex (or strongly convex) and smooth, we discuss the stability upper bounds of gradient descent (GD) and stochastic gradient descent and their variants with decreasing step sizes. For Nesterovs accelerated gradient descent (NAG) and heavy ball method (HB), we provide stability upper bounds for the quadratic loss function. Applying existing stability upper bounds for the gradient methods in our trade-off framework, we obtain lower bounds matching the well-established convergence upper bounds up to constants for these algorithms and conjecture similar lower bounds for NAG and HB. Finally, we numerically demonstrate the tightness of our stability bounds in terms of exponents in the rate and also illustrate via a simulated logistic regression problem that our stability bounds reflect the generalization errors better than the simple uniform convergence bounds for GD and NAG.
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
