Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12379v2
• Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:27:44 GMT
• Title: Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairness
• Authors: Sumon Biswas and Hridesh Rajan
• Abstract summary: We have created a benchmark of 40 top-rated models from Kaggle used for 5 different tasks. We have applied 7 mitigation techniques on these models and analyzed the fairness, mitigation results, and impacts on performance.
• Score: 7.673007415383724
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models are increasingly being used in important decision-making software such as approving bank loans, recommending criminal sentencing, hiring employees, and so on. It is important to ensure the fairness of these models so that no discrimination is made based on protected attribute (e.g., race, sex, age) while decision making. Algorithms have been developed to measure unfairness and mitigate them to a certain extent. In this paper, we have focused on the empirical evaluation of fairness and mitigations on real-world machine learning models. We have created a benchmark of 40 top-rated models from Kaggle used for 5 different tasks, and then using a comprehensive set of fairness metrics, evaluated their fairness. Then, we have applied 7 mitigation techniques on these models and analyzed the fairness, mitigation results, and impacts on performance. We have found that some model optimization techniques result in inducing unfairness in the models. On the other hand, although there are some fairness control mechanisms in machine learning libraries, they are not documented. The mitigation algorithm also exhibit common patterns such as mitigation in the post-processing is often costly (in terms of performance) and mitigation in the pre-processing stage is preferred in most cases. We have also presented different trade-off choices of fairness mitigation decisions. Our study suggests future research directions to reduce the gap between theoretical fairness aware algorithms and the software engineering methods to leverage them in practice.

Related papers

• Classes Are Not Equal: An Empirical Study on Image Recognition Fairness [100.36114135663836]
  We experimentally demonstrate that classes are not equal and the fairness issue is prevalent for image classification models across various datasets. Our findings reveal that models tend to exhibit greater prediction biases for classes that are more challenging to recognize. Data augmentation and representation learning algorithms improve overall performance by promoting fairness to some degree in image classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T07:54:50Z)
• FairGridSearch: A Framework to Compare Fairness-Enhancing Models [0.0]
  This paper focuses on binary classification and proposes FairGridSearch, a novel framework for comparing fairness-enhancing models. The study applies FairGridSearch to three popular datasets (Adult, COMPAS, and German Credit) and analyzes the impacts of metric selection, base estimator choice, and classification threshold on model fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T10:29:02Z)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• Non-Invasive Fairness in Learning through the Lens of Data Drift [88.37640805363317]
  We show how to improve the fairness of Machine Learning models without altering the data or the learning algorithm. We use a simple but key insight: the divergence of trends between different populations, and, consecutively, between a learned model and minority populations, is analogous to data drift. We explore two strategies (model-splitting and reweighing) to resolve this drift, aiming to improve the overall conformance of models to the underlying data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:30:42Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Revealing Unfair Models by Mining Interpretable Evidence [50.48264727620845]
  The popularity of machine learning has increased the risk of unfair models getting deployed in high-stake applications. In this paper, we tackle the novel task of revealing unfair models by mining interpretable evidence. Our method finds highly interpretable and solid evidence to effectively reveal the unfairness of trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-12T20:03:08Z)
• Automatic Fairness Testing of Neural Classifiers through Adversarial Sampling [8.2868128804393]
  We propose a scalable and effective approach for systematically searching for discriminative samples. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, our approach only employs lightweight procedures like gradient computation and clustering. The retrained models reduce discrimination by 57.2% and 60.2% respectively on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-17T03:47:08Z)
• The Importance of Modeling Data Missingness in Algorithmic Fairness: A Causal Perspective [14.622708494548363]
  Training datasets for machine learning often have some form of missingness. This missingness, if ignored, nullifies any fairness guarantee of the training procedure when the model is deployed. We show conditions under which various distributions, used in popular fairness algorithms, can or can not be recovered from the training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T16:10:00Z)
• Metrics and methods for a systematic comparison of fairness-aware machine learning algorithms [0.0]
  This study is the most comprehensive of its kind. It considers fairness, predictive-performance, calibration quality, and speed of 28 different modelling pipelines. We also found that fairness-aware algorithms can induce fairness without material drops in predictive power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T13:58:09Z)
• Fairness in Semi-supervised Learning: Unlabeled Data Help to Reduce Discrimination [53.3082498402884]
  A growing specter in the rise of machine learning is whether the decisions made by machine learning models are fair. We present a framework of fair semi-supervised learning in the pre-processing phase, including pseudo labeling to predict labels for unlabeled data. A theoretical decomposition analysis of bias, variance and noise highlights the different sources of discrimination and the impact they have on fairness in semi-supervised learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T05:48:56Z)
• FairALM: Augmented Lagrangian Method for Training Fair Models with Little Regret [42.66567001275493]
  It is now accepted that because of biases in the datasets we present to the models, a fairness-oblivious training will lead to unfair models. Here, we study mechanisms that impose fairness concurrently while training the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-03T03:18:53Z)

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.