Fast Fair Regression via Efficient Approximations of Mutual Information

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06200v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:50:51 GMT
• Title: Fast Fair Regression via Efficient Approximations of Mutual Information
• Authors: Daniel Steinberg, Alistair Reid, Simon O'Callaghan, Finnian Lattimore, Lachlan McCalman, Tiberio Caetano
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces fast approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency group fairness criteria for regression models. It uses such approximations as regularisers to enforce fairness within a regularised risk minimisation framework. Experiments in real-world datasets indicate that in spite of its superior computational efficiency our algorithm still displays state-of-the-art accuracy/fairness tradeoffs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Most work in algorithmic fairness to date has focused on discrete outcomes, such as deciding whether to grant someone a loan or not. In these classification settings, group fairness criteria such as independence, separation and sufficiency can be measured directly by comparing rates of outcomes between subpopulations. Many important problems however require the prediction of a real-valued outcome, such as a risk score or insurance premium. In such regression settings, measuring group fairness criteria is computationally challenging, as it requires estimating information-theoretic divergences between conditional probability density functions. This paper introduces fast approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency group fairness criteria for regression models from their (conditional) mutual information definitions, and uses such approximations as regularisers to enforce fairness within a regularised risk minimisation framework. Experiments in real-world datasets indicate that in spite of its superior computational efficiency our algorithm still displays state-of-the-art accuracy/fairness tradeoffs.

Related papers

• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Uncertainty-Aware Fairness-Adaptive Classification Trees [0.0]
  This paper introduces a new classification tree algorithm using a novel splitting criterion that incorporates fairness adjustments into the tree-building process. We show that our method effectively reduces discriminatory predictions compared to traditional classification trees, without significant loss in overall accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T08:42:12Z)
• Fairness Without Harm: An Influence-Guided Active Sampling Approach [32.173195437797766]
  We aim to train models that mitigate group fairness disparity without causing harm to model accuracy. The current data acquisition methods, such as fair active learning approaches, typically require annotating sensitive attributes. We propose a tractable active data sampling algorithm that does not rely on training group annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T07:57:38Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Costs and Benefits of Wasserstein Fair Regression [11.134279147254361]
  In this paper, we characterize the inherent tradeoff between statistical parity and accuracy in the regression setting. Our lower bound is sharp, algorithm-independent, and admits a simple interpretation. We develop a practical algorithm for fair regression through the lens of representation learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-16T14:24:44Z)
• Risk Minimization from Adaptively Collected Data: Guarantees for Supervised and Policy Learning [57.88785630755165]
  Empirical risk minimization (ERM) is the workhorse of machine learning, but its model-agnostic guarantees can fail when we use adaptively collected data. We study a generic importance sampling weighted ERM algorithm for using adaptively collected data to minimize the average of a loss function over a hypothesis class. For policy learning, we provide rate-optimal regret guarantees that close an open gap in the existing literature whenever exploration decays to zero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-03T09:50:13Z)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
• Causal Feature Selection for Algorithmic Fairness [61.767399505764736]
  We consider fairness in the integration component of data management. We propose an approach to identify a sub-collection of features that ensure the fairness of the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T20:20:10Z)
• GenDICE: Generalized Offline Estimation of Stationary Values [108.17309783125398]
  We show that effective estimation can still be achieved in important applications. Our approach is based on estimating a ratio that corrects for the discrepancy between the stationary and empirical distributions. The resulting algorithm, GenDICE, is straightforward and effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-21T00:27:52Z)
• Fairness Measures for Regression via Probabilistic Classification [0.0]
  Algorithmic fairness involves expressing notions such as equity, or reasonable treatment, as quantifiable measures that a machine learning algorithm can optimise. This is in part because classification fairness measures are easily computed by comparing the rates of outcomes, leading to behaviours such as ensuring the same fraction of eligible men are selected as eligible women. But such measures are computationally difficult to generalise to the continuous regression setting for problems such as pricing, or allocating payments. For the regression setting we introduce tractable approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency criteria by observing that they factorise as ratios of different conditional probabilities of the protected attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-16T21:53:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.