When Personalization Harms: Reconsidering the Use of Group Attributes in Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02058v3
• Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:17:42 GMT
• Title: When Personalization Harms: Reconsidering the Use of Group Attributes in Prediction
• Authors: Vinith M. Suriyakumar, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Berk Ustun
• Abstract summary: We show models that are personalized with group attributes can reduce performance at a group level. We propose formal conditions to ensure the "fair use" of group attributes in prediction tasks.
• Score: 10.633713789134479
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models are often personalized with categorical attributes that are protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. In this work, we show models that are personalized with group attributes can reduce performance at a group level. We propose formal conditions to ensure the "fair use" of group attributes in prediction tasks by training one additional model -- i.e., collective preference guarantees to ensure that each group who provides personal data will receive a tailored gain in performance in return. We present sufficient conditions to ensure fair use in empirical risk minimization and characterize failure modes that lead to fair use violations due to standard practices in model development and deployment. We present a comprehensive empirical study of fair use in clinical prediction tasks. Our results demonstrate the prevalence of fair use violations in practice and illustrate simple interventions to mitigate their harm.

Related papers

• When Fairness Meets Privacy: Exploring Privacy Threats in Fair Binary Classifiers via Membership Inference Attacks [17.243744418309593]
  We propose an efficient MIA method against fairness-enhanced models based on fairness discrepancy results. We also explore potential strategies for mitigating privacy leakages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T10:28:17Z)
• Improving Adaptive Conformal Prediction Using Self-Supervised Learning [72.2614468437919]
  We train an auxiliary model with a self-supervised pretext task on top of an existing predictive model and use the self-supervised error as an additional feature to estimate nonconformity scores. We empirically demonstrate the benefit of the additional information using both synthetic and real data on the efficiency (width), deficit, and excess of conformal prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T18:57:14Z)
• The Unbearable Weight of Massive Privilege: Revisiting Bias-Variance Trade-Offs in the Context of Fair Prediction [7.975779552420981]
  We propose a conditional-iid (ciid) model that seeks to improve on the trade-offs made by a single model. We empirically test our setup on the COMPAS and folktables datasets. Our analysis suggests that there might be principled procedures and concrete real-world use cases under which conditional models are preferred.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T05:34:35Z)
• "You Can't Fix What You Can't Measure": Privately Measuring Demographic Performance Disparities in Federated Learning [78.70083858195906]
  We propose differentially private mechanisms to measure differences in performance across groups while protecting the privacy of group membership. Our results show that, contrary to what prior work suggested, protecting privacy is not necessarily in conflict with identifying performance disparities of federated models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T09:46:43Z)
• Contrastive Learning for Fair Representations [50.95604482330149]
  Trained classification models can unintentionally lead to biased representations and predictions. Existing debiasing methods for classification models, such as adversarial training, are often expensive to train and difficult to optimise. We propose a method for mitigating bias by incorporating contrastive learning, in which instances sharing the same class label are encouraged to have similar representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-22T10:47:51Z)
• 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)
• Unsupervised Learning of Debiased Representations with Pseudo-Attributes [85.5691102676175]
  We propose a simple but effective debiasing technique in an unsupervised manner. We perform clustering on the feature embedding space and identify pseudoattributes by taking advantage of the clustering results. We then employ a novel cluster-based reweighting scheme for learning debiased representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-06T05:20:46Z)
• 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)
• Fairness by Explicability and Adversarial SHAP Learning [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that emphasises the role of an external auditor and model explicability. We develop a framework for mitigating model bias using regularizations constructed from the SHAP values of an adversarial surrogate model. We demonstrate our approaches using gradient and adaptive boosting on: a synthetic dataset, the UCI Adult (Census) dataset and a real-world credit scoring dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-11T14:36:34Z)
• Counterfactual fairness: removing direct effects through regularization [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that incorporates causality through the Controlled Direct Effect (CDE) We develop regularizations to tackle classical fairness measures and present a causal regularization that satisfies our new fairness definition. Our results were found to mitigate unfairness from the predictions with small reductions in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-25T10:13:55Z)

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.