Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCharacterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels
67
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Algorithmic risk assessments are used to inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. Often multiple predictive models deliver similar overall performance but differ markedly in their predictions for individual cases, an empirical phenomenon known as the Rashomon Effect. These models may have different properties over various groups, and therefore have different predictive fairness properties. We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance, or the set of good models. Our framework addresses the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data in the setting where the selection decision and outcome are unconfounded given the observed data features. Our framework can be used to 1) replace an existing model with one that has better fairness properties; or 2) audit for predictive bias. We illustrate these uses cases on a real-world credit-scoring task and a recidivism prediction task.
rate research
Read More
Algorithmic fairness, and in particular the fairness of scoring and classification algorithms, has become a topic of increasing social concern and has recently witnessed an explosion of research in theoretical computer science, machine learning, statistics, the social sciences, and law. Much of the literature considers the case of a single classifier (or scoring function) used once, in isolation. In this work, we initiate the study of the fairness properties of systems composed of algorithms that are fair in isolation; that is, we study fairness under composition. We identify pitfalls of naive composition and give general constructions for fair composition, demonstrating both that classifiers that are fair in isolation do not necessarily compose into fair systems and also that seemingly unfair components may be carefully combined to construct fair systems. We focus primarily on the individual fairness setting proposed in [Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, Zemel, 2011], but also extend our results to a large class of group fairness definitions popular in the recent literature, exhibiting several cases in which group fairness definitions give misleading signals under composition.
Training and evaluation of fair classifiers is a challenging problem. This is partly due to the fact that most fairness metrics of interest depend on both the sensitive attribute information and label information of the data points. In many scenarios it is not possible to collect large datasets with such information. An alternate approach that is commonly used is to separately train an attribute classifier on data with sensitive attribute information, and then use it later in the ML pipeline to evaluate the bias of a given classifier. While such decoupling helps alleviate the problem of demographic scarcity, it raises several natural questions such as: how should the attribute classifier be trained?, and how should one use a given attribute classifier for accurate bias estimation? In this work we study this question from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. We first experimentally demonstrate that the test accuracy of the attribute classifier is not always correlated with its effectiveness in bias estimation for a downstream model. In order to further investigate this phenomenon, we analyze an idealized theoretical model and characterize the structure of the optimal classifier. Our analysis has surprising and counter-intuitive implications where in certain regimes one might want to distribute the error of the attribute classifier as unevenly as possible among the different subgroups. Based on our analysis we develop heuristics for both training and using attribute classifiers for bias estimation in the data scarce regime. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on real and simulated data.
In this paper, we cast fair machine learning as invariant machine learning. We first formulate a version of individual fairness that enforces invariance on certain sensitive sets. We then design a transport-based regularizer that enforces this version of individual fairness and develop an algorithm to minimize the regularizer efficiently. Our theoretical results guarantee the proposed approach trains certifiably fair ML models. Finally, in the experimental studies we demonstrate improved fairness metrics in comparison to several recent fair training procedures on three ML tasks that are susceptible to algorithmic bias.
The current success of deep learning depends on large-scale labeled datasets. In practice, high-quality annotations are expensive to collect, but noisy annotations are more affordable. Previous works report mixed empirical results when training with noisy labels: neural networks can easily memorize random labels, but they can also generalize from noisy labels. To explain this puzzle, we study how architecture affects learning with noisy labels. We observe that if an architecture suits the task, training with noisy labels can induce useful hidden representations, even when the model generalizes poorly; i.e., the last few layers of the model are more negatively affected by noisy labels. This finding leads to a simple method to improve models trained on noisy labels: replacing the final dense layers with a linear model, whose weights are learned from a small set of clean data. We empirically validate our findings across three architectures (Convolutional Neural Networks, Graph Neural Networks, and Multi-Layer Perceptrons) and two domains (graph algorithmic tasks and image classification). Furthermore, we achieve state-of-the-art results on image classification benchmarks by combining our method with existing approaches on noisy label training.
In this work we study the problem of measuring the fairness of a machine learning model under noisy information. Focusing on group fairness metrics, we investigate the particular but common situation when the evaluation requires controlling for the confounding effect of covariate variables. In a practical setting, we might not be able to jointly observe the covariate and group information, and a standard workaround is to then use proxies for one or more of these variables. Prior works have demonstrated the challenges with using a proxy for sensitive attributes, and strong independence assumptions are needed to provide guarantees on the accuracy of the noisy estimates. In contrast, in this work we study using a proxy for the covariate variable and present a theoretical analysis that aims to characterize weaker conditions under which accurate fairness evaluation is possible. Furthermore, our theory identifies potential sources of errors and decouples them into two interpretable parts $gamma$ and $epsilon$. The first part $gamma$ depends solely on the performance of the proxy such as precision and recall, whereas the second part $epsilon$ captures correlations between all the variables of interest. We show that in many scenarios the error in the estimates is dominated by $gamma$ via a linear dependence, whereas the dependence on the correlations $epsilon$ only constitutes a lower order term. As a result we expand the understanding of scenarios where measuring model fairness via proxies can be an effective approach. Finally, we compare, via simulations, the theoretical upper-bounds to the distribution of simulated estimation errors and show that assuming some structure on the data, even weak, is key to significantly improve both theoretical guarantees and empirical results.
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
