Fairness and Randomness in Machine Learning: Statistical Independence and Relativization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13596v2
• Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:06:18 GMT
• Title: Fairness and Randomness in Machine Learning: Statistical Independence and Relativization
• Authors: Rabanus Derr and Robert C. Williamson
• Abstract summary: We dissect the role of statistical independence in fairness and randomness notions regularly used in machine learning. We argue that randomness and fairness should reflect their nature as modeling assumptions in machine learning.
• Score: 10.482805367361818
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Fair Machine Learning endeavors to prevent unfairness arising in the context of machine learning applications embedded in society. Despite the variety of definitions of fairness and proposed "fair algorithms", there remain unresolved conceptual problems regarding fairness. In this paper, we dissect the role of statistical independence in fairness and randomness notions regularly used in machine learning. Thereby, we are led to a suprising hypothesis: randomness and fairness can be considered equivalent concepts in machine learning. In particular, we obtain a relativized notion of randomness expressed as statistical independence by appealing to Von Mises' century-old foundations for probability. This notion turns out to be "orthogonal" in an abstract sense to the commonly used i.i.d.-randomness. Using standard fairness notions in machine learning, which are defined via statistical independence, we then link the ex ante randomness assumptions about the data to the ex post requirements for fair predictions. This connection proves fruitful: we use it to argue that randomness and fairness are essentially relative and that both concepts should reflect their nature as modeling assumptions in machine learning.

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)
• The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning [0.0]
  We show that there is a trade-off between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes in any data setting where group disparities exist. We introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation to aid researchers and designers in understanding the relationship between statistically accurate outcomes and group similar outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T10:07:12Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Identifiability of Causal-based Fairness Notions: A State of the Art [4.157415305926584]
  Machine learning algorithms can produce biased outcome/prediction, typically, against minorities and under-represented sub-populations. This paper is a compilation of the major identifiability results which are of particular relevance for machine learning fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-11T13:10:32Z)
• Explainability for fair machine learning [10.227479910430866]
  We present a new approach to explaining fairness in machine learning, based on the Shapley value paradigm. Our fairness explanations attribute a model's overall unfairness to individual input features, even in cases where the model does not operate on sensitive attributes directly. We propose a meta algorithm for applying existing training-time fairness interventions, wherein one trains a perturbation to the original model, rather than a new model entirely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-14T20:21:01Z)
• A Note on High-Probability versus In-Expectation Guarantees of Generalization Bounds in Machine Learning [95.48744259567837]
  Statistical machine learning theory often tries to give generalization guarantees of machine learning models. Statements made about the performance of machine learning models have to take the sampling process into account. We show how one may transform one statement to another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T09:41:35Z)
• The Impossibility Theorem of Machine Fairness -- A Causal Perspective [0.15229257192293202]
  There are three prominent metrics of machine fairness used in the community. It has been shown statistically that it is impossible to satisfy them all at the same time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-12T15:56:15Z)
• Contextuality scenarios arising from networks of stochastic processes [68.8204255655161]
  An empirical model is said contextual if its distributions cannot be obtained marginalizing a joint distribution over X. We present a different and classical source of contextual empirical models: the interaction among many processes. The statistical behavior of the network in the long run makes the empirical model generically contextual and even strongly contextual.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T16:57:52Z)
• Statistical Equity: A Fairness Classification Objective [6.174903055136084]
  We propose a new fairness definition motivated by the principle of equity. We formalize our definition of fairness, and motivate it with its appropriate contexts. We perform multiple automatic and human evaluations to show the effectiveness of our definition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T23:19:38Z)

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.