Fair Inputs and Fair Outputs: The Incompatibility of Fairness in Privacy and Accuracy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09209v3
• Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 22:08:23 GMT
• Title: Fair Inputs and Fair Outputs: The Incompatibility of Fairness in Privacy and Accuracy
• Authors: Bashir Rastegarpanah (1), Mark Crovella (1), Krishna P. Gummadi (2) ((1) Boston University, (2) MPI-SWS)
• Abstract summary: We argue that privacy and need-to-know are desirable properties of a decision system. We show that for an optimal classifier these three properties are in general incompatible. We provide an algorithm to verify if the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness concerns about algorithmic decision-making systems have been mainly focused on the outputs (e.g., the accuracy of a classifier across individuals or groups). However, one may additionally be concerned with fairness in the inputs. In this paper, we propose and formulate two properties regarding the inputs of (features used by) a classifier. In particular, we claim that fair privacy (whether individuals are all asked to reveal the same information) and need-to-know (whether users are only asked for the minimal information required for the task at hand) are desirable properties of a decision system. We explore the interaction between these properties and fairness in the outputs (fair prediction accuracy). We show that for an optimal classifier these three properties are in general incompatible, and we explain what common properties of data make them incompatible. Finally we provide an algorithm to verify if the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset, and use the algorithm to show that this trade-off is common in real data.

Related papers

• Targeted Learning for Data Fairness [52.59573714151884]
  We expand fairness inference by evaluating fairness in the data generating process itself. We derive estimators demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information. To validate our approach, we perform several simulations and apply our estimators to real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:51:28Z)
• Balancing Fairness and Accuracy in Data-Restricted Binary Classification [14.439413517433891]
  This paper proposes a framework that models the trade-off between accuracy and fairness under four practical scenarios. Experiments on three datasets demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework as a tool for quantifying the trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T15:01:27Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Fair Causal Feature Selection [17.29310476978056]
  We propose a Fair Causal Feature Selection algorithm, called FairCFS. FairCFS constructs a localized causal graph that identifies the Markov blankets of class and sensitive variables. Experiments on seven public real-world datasets validate that FairCFS has comparable accuracy compared to eight state-of-the-art feature selection algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-17T12:40:43Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Practical Approaches for Fair Learning with Multitype and Multivariate Sensitive Attributes [70.6326967720747]
  It is important to guarantee that machine learning algorithms deployed in the real world do not result in unfairness or unintended social consequences. We introduce FairCOCCO, a fairness measure built on cross-covariance operators on reproducing kernel Hilbert Spaces. We empirically demonstrate consistent improvements against state-of-the-art techniques in balancing predictive power and fairness on real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T11:28:46Z)
• Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions [4.159343412286401]
  We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T15:18:30Z)
• 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)
• Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Far [68.45921483094705]
  Data-driven algorithms are studied in diverse domains to support critical decisions, directly impacting people's well-being. A growing community of researchers has been investigating the equity of existing algorithms and proposing novel ones, advancing the understanding of risks and opportunities of automated decision-making for historically disadvantaged populations. Progress in fair Machine Learning hinges on data, which can be appropriately used only if adequately documented. Unfortunately, the algorithmic fairness community suffers from a collective data documentation debt caused by a lack of information on specific resources (opacity) and scatteredness of available information (sparsity)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T17:25:46Z)
• Information Theoretic Measures for Fairness-aware Feature Selection [27.06618125828978]
  We develop a framework for fairness-aware feature selection, based on information theoretic measures for the accuracy and discriminatory impacts of features. Specifically, our goal is to design a fairness utility score for each feature which quantifies how this feature influences accurate as well as nondiscriminatory decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T20:11:54Z)
• Transparency Tools for Fairness in AI (Luskin) [12.158766675246337]
  We propose new tools for assessing and correcting fairness and bias in AI algorithms. The three tools are: - A new definition of fairness called "controlled fairness" with respect to choices of protected features and filters. They are useful for understanding various dimensions of bias, and that in practice the algorithms are effective in starkly reducing a given observed bias when tested on new data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-09T00:21:54Z)
• 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)

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.