Empirical observation of negligible fairness-accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02972v2
• Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 04:28:33 GMT
• Title: Empirical observation of negligible fairness-accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policy
• Authors: Kit T. Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, Rayid Ghani
• Abstract summary: We show that fairness-accuracy trade-offs in many applications are negligible in practice. We find that explicitly focusing on achieving equity and using our proposed post-hoc disparity mitigation methods, fairness was substantially improved without sacrificing accuracy.
• Score: 13.037143215464132
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Growing applications of machine learning in policy and social impact settings have raised concern for fairness implications, especially for racial minorities. These concerns have generated considerable interest among machine learning and artificial intelligence researchers, who have developed new methods and established theoretical bounds for improving fairness, focusing on the source data, regularization and model training, or post-hoc adjustments to model scores. However, little work has studied the practical trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in real-world settings to understand how these bounds and methods translate into policy choices and impact on society. Our empirical study fills this gap by investigating the impact on accuracy of mitigating disparities across several policy settings, focusing on the common context of using machine learning to inform benefit allocation in resource-constrained programs across education, mental health, criminal justice, and housing safety. We show that fairness-accuracy trade-offs in many applications are negligible in practice. In every setting, we find that explicitly focusing on achieving equity and using our proposed post-hoc disparity mitigation methods, fairness was substantially improved without sacrificing accuracy. This observation was robust across policy contexts studied, scale of resources available for intervention, time, and relative size of the protected groups. These empirical results challenge a commonly held assumption that reducing disparities either requires accepting an appreciable drop in accuracy or the development of novel, complex methods, making reducing disparities in these applications more practical.

Related papers

• Reduced-Rank Multi-objective Policy Learning and Optimization [57.978477569678844]
  In practice, causal researchers do not have a single outcome in mind a priori. In government-assisted social benefit programs, policymakers collect many outcomes to understand the multidimensional nature of poverty. We present a data-driven dimensionality-reduction methodology for multiple outcomes in the context of optimal policy learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T08:16:30Z)
• Parametric Fairness with Statistical Guarantees [0.46040036610482665]
  We extend the concept of Demographic Parity to incorporate distributional properties in predictions, allowing expert knowledge to be used in the fair solution. We illustrate the use of this new metric through a practical example of wages, and develop a parametric method that efficiently addresses practical challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T14:52:39Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• Individual Fairness under Uncertainty [26.183244654397477]
  Algorithmic fairness is an established area in machine learning (ML) algorithms. We propose an individual fairness measure and a corresponding algorithm that deal with the challenges of uncertainty arising from censorship in class labels. We argue that this perspective represents a more realistic model of fairness research for real-world application deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T01:07:58Z)
• Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensions [4.257210316104905]
  Automated decision systems are increasingly used to take consequential decisions in problems such as job hiring and loan granting. However, objective machine learning (ML) algorithms are prone to bias, which results in yet unfair decisions. This paper surveys the commonly used fairness notions and discusses the tensions among them with privacy and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-16T13:36:05Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• An Empirical Comparison of Bias Reduction Methods on Real-World Problems in High-Stakes Policy Settings [13.037143215464132]
  We investigate the performance of several methods that operate at different points in the machine learning pipeline across four real-world public policy and social good problems. We find a wide degree of variability and inconsistency in the ability of many of these methods to improve model fairness, but post-processing by choosing group-specific score thresholds consistently removes disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-13T17:33:28Z)
• Can Active Learning Preemptively Mitigate Fairness Issues? [66.84854430781097]
  dataset bias is one of the prevailing causes of unfairness in machine learning. We study whether models trained with uncertainty-based ALs are fairer in their decisions with respect to a protected class. We also explore the interaction of algorithmic fairness methods such as gradient reversal (GRAD) and BALD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T14:20:22Z)
• Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Survey for Practitioners [69.02688684221265]
  The use of sophisticated statistical models that influence decisions in domains of high societal relevance is on the rise. Many governments, institutions, and companies are reluctant to their adoption as their output is often difficult to explain in human-interpretable ways. Recently, the academic literature has proposed a substantial amount of methods for providing interpretable explanations to machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T01:46:34Z)
• Fairness in Machine Learning [15.934879442202785]
  We show how causal Bayesian networks can play an important role to reason about and deal with fairness. We present a unified framework that encompasses methods that can deal with different settings and fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T18:38:58Z)
• Accurate and Robust Feature Importance Estimation under Distribution Shifts [49.58991359544005]
  PRoFILE is a novel feature importance estimation method. We show significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches, both in terms of fidelity and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T05:29:01Z)

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.