Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00673v1
• Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:12:49 GMT
• Title: Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness
• Abstract summary: We run a study with Machine Learning practitioners to understand the strategies used to evaluate models. We discover fairness assessment strategies involving personal experiences or how users form groups of identity tokens to test model fairness.
• Score: 34.071324739205096
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Mitigating algorithmic bias is a critical task in the development and deployment of machine learning models. While several toolkits exist to aid machine learning practitioners in addressing fairness issues, little is known about the strategies practitioners employ to evaluate model fairness and what factors influence their assessment, particularly in the context of text classification. Two common approaches of evaluating the fairness of a model are group fairness and individual fairness. We run a study with Machine Learning practitioners (n=24) to understand the strategies used to evaluate models. Metrics presented to practitioners (group vs. individual fairness) impact which models they consider fair. Participants focused on risks associated with underpredicting/overpredicting and model sensitivity relative to identity token manipulations. We discover fairness assessment strategies involving personal experiences or how users form groups of identity tokens to test model fairness. We provide recommendations for interactive tools for evaluating fairness in text classification.

Related papers

• When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning [0.0]
  We investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models.<n>Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias.<n>These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T14:07:37Z)
• Measuring Perceptions of Fairness in AI Systems: The Effects of Infra-marginality [2.48490797934472]
  We present a user study with 85 participants in a hypothetical medical decision-making scenario.<n>Our results show that participants did not equate fairness with simple statistical parity.<n>These findings highlight that fairness judgments are shaped not only by outcomes, but also by beliefs about the causes of disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T04:15:52Z)
• Empowering Affected Individuals to Shape AI Fairness Assessments: Processes, Criteria, and Tools [5.72357951997548]
  Existing fairness assessments are typically conducted by AI experts or regulators using protected attributes and metrics.<n>Recent work has called for involving affected individuals in fairness assessment, yet little empirical evidence exists on how they create their own fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T12:51:01Z)
• Counterfactual Fairness Evaluation of Machine Learning Models on Educational Datasets [4.7223923266180785]
  Group fairness is widely explored in education, but works on individual fairness in a causal context are understudied. This paper explores the notion of counterfactual fairness for educational data by conducting counterfactual fairness analysis of machine learning models. We demonstrate that counterfactual fairness provides meaningful insight into the causality of sensitive attributes and causal-based individual fairness in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T07:25:40Z)
• Fairness Evaluation with Item Response Theory [10.871079276188649]
  This paper proposes a novel Fair-IRT framework to evaluate fairness in Machine Learning (ML) models. Detailed explanations for item characteristic curves (ICCs) are provided for particular individuals. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework as a fairness evaluation tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T22:25:20Z)
• TIDE: Textual Identity Detection for Evaluating and Augmenting Classification and Language Models [0.0]
  Machine learning models can perpetuate unintended biases from unfair and imbalanced datasets. We present a dataset coupled with an approach to improve text fairness in classifiers and language models. We leverage TIDAL to develop an identity annotation and augmentation tool that can be used to improve the availability of identity context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T21:44:42Z)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• 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)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• 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)

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.