Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOnline certification of preference-based fairness for personalized recommender systems
177
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Virginie Do
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We propose to assess the fairness of personalized recommender systems in the sense of envy-freeness: every (group of) user(s) should prefer their recommendations to the recommendations of other (groups of) users. Auditing for envy-freeness requires probing user preferences to detect potential blind spots, which may deteriorate recommendation performance. To control the cost of exploration, we propose an auditing algorithm based on pure exploration and conservative constraints in multi-armed bandits. We study, both theoretically and empirically, the trade-offs achieved by this algorithm.
rate research
Read More
In many application areas---lending, education, and online recommenders, for example---fairness and equity concerns emerge when a machine learning system interacts with a dynamically changing environment to produce both immediate and long-term effects for individuals and demographic groups. We discuss causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) as a unifying framework for the recent literature on fairness in such dynamical systems. We show that this formulation affords several new directions of inquiry to the modeler, where causal assumptions can be expressed and manipulated. We emphasize the importance of computing interventional quantities in the dynamical fairness setting, and show how causal assumptions enable simulation (when environment dynamics are known) and off-policy estimation (when dynamics are unknown) of intervention on short- and long-term outcomes, at both the group and individual levels.
Ubiquitous personalized recommender systems are built to achieve two seemingly conflicting goals, to serve high quality content tailored to individual users taste and to adapt quickly to the ever changing environment. The former requires a complex machine learning model that is trained on a large amount of data; the latter requires frequent update to the model. We present an incremental learning solution to provide both the training efficiency and the model quality. Our solution is based on sequential Bayesian update and quadratic approximation. Our focus is on large-scale personalized logistic regression models, with extensions to deep learning models. This paper fills in the gap between the theory and the practice by addressing a few implementation challenges that arise when applying incremental learning to large personalized recommender systems. Detailed offline and online experiments demonstrated our approach can significantly shorten the training time while maintaining the model accuracy. The solution is deployed in LinkedIn and directly applicable to industrial scale recommender systems.
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.
Fairness is crucial for neural networks which are used in applications with important societal implication. Recently, there have been multiple attempts on improving fairness of neural networks, with a focus on fairness testing (e.g., generating individual discriminatory instances) and fairness training (e.g., enhancing fairness through augmented training). In this work, we propose an approach to formally verify neural networks against fairness, with a focus on independence-based fairness such as group fairness. Our method is built upon an approach for learning Markov Chains from a user-provided neural network (i.e., a feed-forward neural network or a recurrent neural network) which is guaranteed to facilitate sound analysis. The learned Markov Chain not only allows us to verify (with Probably Approximate Correctness guarantee) whether the neural network is fair or not, but also facilities sensitivity analysis which helps to understand why fairness is violated. We demonstrate that with our analysis results, the neural weights can be optimized to improve fairness. Our approach has been evaluated with multiple models trained on benchmark datasets and the experiment results show that our approach is effective and efficient.
Understanding and removing bias from the decisions made by machine learning models is essential to avoid discrimination against unprivileged groups. Despite recent progress in algorithmic fairness, there is still no clear answer as to which bias-mitigation approaches are most effective. Evaluation strategies are typically use-case specific, rely on data with unclear bias, and employ a fixed policy to convert model outputs to decision outcomes. To address these problems, we performed a systematic comparison of a number of popular fairness algorithms applicable to supervised classification. Our study is the most comprehensive of its kind. It utilizes three real and four synthetic datasets, and two different ways of converting model outputs to decisions. It considers fairness, predictive-performance, calibration quality, and speed of 28 different modelling pipelines, corresponding to both fairness-unaware and fairness-aware algorithms. We found that fairness-unaware algorithms typically fail to produce adequately fair models and that the simplest algorithms are not necessarily the fairest ones. We also found that fairness-aware algorithms can induce fairness without material drops in predictive power. Finally, we found that dataset idiosyncracies (e.g., degree of intrinsic unfairness, nature of correlations) do affect the performance of fairness-aware approaches. Our results allow the practitioner to narrow down the approach(es) they would like to adopt without having to know in advance their fairness requirements.
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
