Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06273v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 15:18:30 GMT
• Title: Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions
• Authors: Jos\'e Pombal, Andr\'e F. Cruz, Jo\~ao Bravo, Pedro Saleiro, M\'ario A.T. Figueiredo, Pedro Bizarro
• Abstract summary: We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
• Score: 4.159343412286401
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, machine learning algorithms have become ubiquitous in a multitude of high-stakes decision-making applications. The unparalleled ability of machine learning algorithms to learn patterns from data also enables them to incorporate biases embedded within. A biased model can then make decisions that disproportionately harm certain groups in society -- limiting their access to financial services, for example. The awareness of this problem has given rise to the field of Fair ML, which focuses on studying, measuring, and mitigating unfairness in algorithmic prediction, with respect to a set of protected groups (e.g., race or gender). However, the underlying causes for algorithmic unfairness still remain elusive, with researchers divided between blaming either the ML algorithms or the data they are trained on. In this work, we maintain that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data, rather than from isolated contributions of either of them. To this end, we propose a taxonomy to characterize data bias and we study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings. On our real-world account-opening fraud use case, we find that each setting entails specific trade-offs, affecting fairness in expected value and variance -- the latter often going unnoticed. Moreover, we show how algorithms compare differently in terms of accuracy and fairness, depending on the biases affecting the data. Finally, we note that under specific data bias conditions, simple pre-processing interventions can successfully balance group-wise error rates, while the same techniques fail in more complex settings.

Related papers

• Is it Still Fair? A Comparative Evaluation of Fairness Algorithms through the Lens of Covariate Drift [17.498879317113385]
  We study data distributional drift and its impact on fairness algorithms and metrics. In several cases, data distributional drift can lead to serious deterioration of fairness in so-called fair models. Emanating from our findings, we synthesize several policy implications of data distributional drift on fairness algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T03:18:12Z)
• Outlier Detection Bias Busted: Understanding Sources of Algorithmic Bias through Data-centric Factors [28.869581543676947]
  unsupervised outlier detection (OD) has numerous applications in finance, security, etc. This work aims to shed light on the possible sources of unfairness in OD by auditing detection models under different data-centric factors. We find that the OD algorithms under the study all exhibit fairness pitfalls, although differing in which types of data bias they are more susceptible to.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T20:35:32Z)
• Editable Fairness: Fine-Grained Bias Mitigation in Language Models [52.66450426729818]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases. FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance. This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• AIM: Attributing, Interpreting, Mitigating Data Unfairness [40.351282126410545]
  Existing fair machine learning (FairML) research has predominantly focused on mitigating discriminative bias in the model prediction. We investigate a novel research problem: discovering samples that reflect biases/prejudices from the training data. We propose practical algorithms for measuring and countering sample bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T05:21:10Z)
• 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)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Prisoners of Their Own Devices: How Models Induce Data Bias in Performative Prediction [4.874780144224057]
  A biased model can make decisions that disproportionately harm certain groups in society. Much work has been devoted to measuring unfairness in static ML environments, but not in dynamic, performative prediction ones. We propose a taxonomy to characterize bias in the data, and study cases where it is shaped by model behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T10:56:04Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.