Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11562v7
• Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:48:41 GMT
• Title: Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification
• Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Katherine Lee, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Solon Barocas, Christopher De Sa, James Grimmelmann, Jon Kleinberg, Siddhartha Sen, Baobao Zhang
• Abstract summary: Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
• Score: 31.392067805022414
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. To investigate this problem, we take an experimental approach and make four overarching contributions: We: 1) Define a metric called self-consistency, derived from variance, which we use as a proxy for measuring and reducing arbitrariness; 2) Develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary; 3) Conduct the largest to-date empirical study of the role of variance (vis-a-vis self-consistency and arbitrariness) in fair binary classification; and, 4) Release a toolkit that makes the US Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) datasets easily usable for future research. Altogether, our experiments reveal shocking insights about the reliability of conclusions on benchmark datasets. Most fair binary classification benchmarks are close-to-fair when taking into account the amount of arbitrariness present in predictions -- before we even try to apply any fairness interventions. This finding calls into question the practical utility of common algorithmic fairness methods, and in turn suggests that we should reconsider how we choose to measure fairness in binary classification.

Related papers

• 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)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Correcting Underrepresentation and Intersectional Bias for Classification [49.1574468325115]
  We consider the problem of learning from data corrupted by underrepresentation bias. We show that with a small amount of unbiased data, we can efficiently estimate the group-wise drop-out rates. We show that our algorithm permits efficient learning for model classes of finite VC dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:25:44Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• Fairness and Unfairness in Binary and Multiclass Classification: Quantifying, Calculating, and Bounding [22.449347663780767]
  We propose a new interpretable measure of unfairness, that allows providing a quantitative analysis of classifier fairness. We show how this measure can be calculated when the classifier's conditional confusion matrices are known. We report experiments on data sets representing diverse applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-07T12:26:28Z)
• 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)
• Pairwise Fairness for Ordinal Regression [22.838858781036574]
  We adapt two fairness notions previously considered in fair ranking and propose a strategy for training a predictor that is approximately fair according to either notion. Our predictor consists of a threshold model, composed of a scoring function and a set of thresholds. We show that our strategy allows us to effectively explore the accuracy-vs-fairness trade-off and that it often compares favorably to "unfair" state-of-the-art methods for ordinal regression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T10:33:42Z)
• On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse [36.519629650529666]
  We propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level. We show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T16:35:06Z)
• Robust Fairness under Covariate Shift [11.151913007808927]
  Making predictions that are fair with regard to protected group membership has become an important requirement for classification algorithms. We propose an approach that obtains the predictor that is robust to the worst-case in terms of target performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-11T04:42:01Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Fairness Measures for Regression via Probabilistic Classification [0.0]
  Algorithmic fairness involves expressing notions such as equity, or reasonable treatment, as quantifiable measures that a machine learning algorithm can optimise. This is in part because classification fairness measures are easily computed by comparing the rates of outcomes, leading to behaviours such as ensuring the same fraction of eligible men are selected as eligible women. But such measures are computationally difficult to generalise to the continuous regression setting for problems such as pricing, or allocating payments. For the regression setting we introduce tractable approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency criteria by observing that they factorise as ratios of different conditional probabilities of the protected attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-16T21:53:26Z)

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.