Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07139v4
• Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:00:08 GMT
• Title: Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity
• Authors: Kacper Sokol, Meelis Kull, Jeffrey Chan, Flora Salim,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 10.144058870887061
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While data-driven predictive models are a strictly technological construct, they may operate within a social context in which benign engineering choices entail implicit, indirect and unexpected real-life consequences. Fairness of such systems -- pertaining both to individuals and groups -- is one relevant consideration in this space; algorithms can discriminate people across various protected characteristics regardless of whether these properties are included in the data or discernible through proxy variables. To date, this notion has predominantly been studied for a fixed model, often under different classification thresholds, striving to identify and eradicate undesirable, discriminative and possibly unlawful aspects of its operation. Here, we backtrack on this fixed model assumption to propose and explore a novel definition of cross-model fairness where individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models, i.e., in view of utility-based model multiplicity. Since a person may be classified differently across models that are otherwise considered equivalent, this individual could argue for a predictor granting them the most favourable outcome, employing which may have adverse effects on other people. We introduce this scenario with a two-dimensional example and linear classification; then, we present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-life predictive models and data sets that are popular with the algorithmic fairness community; finally, we investigate analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its ramifications in a broader context. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone as doing so is likely to degrade predictive performance.

Related papers

• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Counterfactual Fair Opportunity: Measuring Decision Model Fairness with Counterfactual Reasoning [5.626570248105078]
  This work aims to unveil unfair model behaviors using counterfactual reasoning in the case of fairness under unawareness setting. A counterfactual version of equal opportunity named counterfactual fair opportunity is defined and two novel metrics that analyze the sensitive information of counterfactual samples are introduced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T09:13:53Z)
• Certifying Fairness of Probabilistic Circuits [33.1089249944851]
  We propose an algorithm to search for discrimination patterns in a general class of probabilistic models, namely probabilistic circuits. We also introduce new classes of patterns such as minimal, maximal, and optimal patterns that can effectively summarize exponentially many discrimination patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-05T18:36:45Z)
• Fairness Increases Adversarial Vulnerability [50.90773979394264]
  This paper shows the existence of a dichotomy between fairness and robustness, and analyzes when achieving fairness decreases the model robustness to adversarial samples. Experiments on non-linear models and different architectures validate the theoretical findings in multiple vision domains. The paper proposes a simple, yet effective, solution to construct models achieving good tradeoffs between fairness and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T19:55:35Z)
• fAux: Testing Individual Fairness via Gradient Alignment [2.5329739965085785]
  We describe a new approach for testing individual fairness that does not have either requirement. We show that the proposed method effectively identifies discrimination on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T21:27:20Z)
• Bias-inducing geometries: an exactly solvable data model with fairness implications [13.690313475721094]
  We introduce an exactly solvable high-dimensional model of data imbalance. We analytically unpack the typical properties of learning models trained in this synthetic framework. We obtain exact predictions for the observables that are commonly employed for fairness assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T16:27:57Z)
• SF-PATE: Scalable, Fair, and Private Aggregation of Teacher Ensembles [50.90773979394264]
  This paper studies a model that protects the privacy of individuals' sensitive information while also allowing it to learn non-discriminatory predictors. A key characteristic of the proposed model is to enable the adoption of off-the-selves and non-private fair models to create a privacy-preserving and fair model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:42:54Z)
• 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)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained Learning [123.3472310767721]
  Prediction credibility measures are fundamental in statistics and machine learning. These measures should account for the wide variety of models used in practice. The framework developed in this work expresses the credibility as a risk-fit trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-24T19:52:38Z)

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.