Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00352v2
• Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:25:36 GMT
• Title: Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels
• Authors: Amanda Coston and Ashesh Rambachan and Alexandra Chouldechova
• Abstract summary: We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
• Score: 69.64662540443162
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to make and inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. In practice, there is often a multitude of predictive models that deliver similar overall performance, an empirical phenomenon commonly known as the "Rashomon Effect." While many competing models may perform similarly overall, they may have different properties over various subgroups, and therefore have drastically different predictive fairness properties. In this paper, we develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance, or "the set of good models." We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities and the disparity minimizing model over the set of good models. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data in the setting where the selection decision and outcome are unconfounded given the observed data features. We illustrate our methods in two empirical applications. In a real world credit-scoring task, we build a model with lower predictive disparities than the benchmark model, and demonstrate the benefits of properly accounting for the selective labels problem. In a recidivism risk prediction task, we audit an existing risk score, and find that it generates larger predictive disparities than any model in the set of good models.

Related papers

• Predictive Churn with the Set of Good Models [64.05949860750235]
  We study the effect of conflicting predictions over the set of near-optimal machine learning models. We present theoretical results on the expected churn between models within the Rashomon set. We show how our approach can be used to better anticipate, reduce, and avoid churn in consumer-facing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:15:25Z)
• Deep Neural Network Benchmarks for Selective Classification [27.098996474946446]
  Multiple selective classification frameworks exist, most of which rely on deep neural network architectures. We evaluate these approaches using several criteria, including selective error rate, empirical coverage, distribution of rejected instance's classes, and performance on out-of-distribution instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T12:15:47Z)
• 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)
• fairml: A Statistician's Take on Fair Machine Learning Modelling [0.0]
  We describe the fairml package which implements our previous work (Scutari, Panero, and Proissl 2022) and related models in the literature. fairml is designed around classical statistical models and penalised regression results. The constraint used to enforce fairness is to model estimation, making it possible to mix-and-match the desired model family and fairness definition for each application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T09:59:53Z)
• Investigating Ensemble Methods for Model Robustness Improvement of Text Classifiers [66.36045164286854]
  We analyze a set of existing bias features and demonstrate there is no single model that works best for all the cases. By choosing an appropriate bias model, we can obtain a better robustness result than baselines with a more sophisticated model design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T17:52:10Z)
• Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity [10.144058870887061]
  We argue that individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T14:33:39Z)
• Selecting the suitable resampling strategy for imbalanced data classification regarding dataset properties [62.997667081978825]
  In many application domains such as medicine, information retrieval, cybersecurity, social media, etc., datasets used for inducing classification models often have an unequal distribution of the instances of each class. This situation, known as imbalanced data classification, causes low predictive performance for the minority class examples. Oversampling and undersampling techniques are well-known strategies to deal with this problem by balancing the number of examples of each class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T18:56:39Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• 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)

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.