Oversampling Higher-Performing Minorities During Machine Learning Model Training Reduces Adverse Impact Slightly but Also Reduces Model Accuracy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13933v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:53:29 GMT
• Title: Oversampling Higher-Performing Minorities During Machine Learning Model Training Reduces Adverse Impact Slightly but Also Reduces Model Accuracy
• Authors: Louis Hickman, Jason Kuruzovich, Vincent Ng, Kofi Arhin, Danielle Wilson
• Abstract summary: We systematically under- and oversampled minority (Black and Hispanic) applicants to manipulate adverse impact ratios in training data. We found that training data adverse impact related linearly to ML model adverse impact. We observed consistent effects across self-reports and interview transcripts, whether oversampling real or synthetic observations.
• Score: 18.849426971487077
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Organizations are increasingly adopting machine learning (ML) for personnel assessment. However, concerns exist about fairness in designing and implementing ML assessments. Supervised ML models are trained to model patterns in data, meaning ML models tend to yield predictions that reflect subgroup differences in applicant attributes in the training data, regardless of the underlying cause of subgroup differences. In this study, we systematically under- and oversampled minority (Black and Hispanic) applicants to manipulate adverse impact ratios in training data and investigated how training data adverse impact ratios affect ML model adverse impact and accuracy. We used self-reports and interview transcripts from job applicants (N = 2,501) to train 9,702 ML models to predict screening decisions. We found that training data adverse impact related linearly to ML model adverse impact. However, removing adverse impact from training data only slightly reduced ML model adverse impact and tended to negatively affect ML model accuracy. We observed consistent effects across self-reports and interview transcripts, whether oversampling real (i.e., bootstrapping) or synthetic observations. As our study relied on limited predictor sets from one organization, the observed effects on adverse impact may be attenuated among more accurate ML models.

Related papers

• Low-rank finetuning for LLMs: A fairness perspective [54.13240282850982]
  Low-rank approximation techniques have become the de facto standard for fine-tuning Large Language Models. This paper investigates the effectiveness of these methods in capturing the shift of fine-tuning datasets from the initial pre-trained data distribution. We show that low-rank fine-tuning inadvertently preserves undesirable biases and toxic behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T20:43:53Z)
• Double Machine Learning for Static Panel Models with Fixed Effects [0.0]
  We use double machine learning (DML) to approximate high-dimensional and non-linear functions of confounders. We propose new estimators by adapting correlated random effects, within-group and first-difference estimation for linear models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T14:34:12Z)
• Machine Learning Data Suitability and Performance Testing Using Fault Injection Testing Framework [0.0]
  This paper presents the Fault Injection for Undesirable Learning in input Data (FIUL-Data) testing framework. Data mutators explore vulnerabilities of ML systems against the effects of different fault injections. This paper evaluates the framework using data from analytical chemistry, comprising retention time measurements of anti-sense oligonucleotides.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T12:58:35Z)
• Stubborn Lexical Bias in Data and Models [50.79738900885665]
  We use a new statistical method to examine whether spurious patterns in data appear in models trained on the data. We apply an optimization approach to *reweight* the training data, reducing thousands of spurious correlations. Surprisingly, though this method can successfully reduce lexical biases in the training data, we still find strong evidence of corresponding bias in the trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-03T20:12:27Z)
• Non-Invasive Fairness in Learning through the Lens of Data Drift [88.37640805363317]
  We show how to improve the fairness of Machine Learning models without altering the data or the learning algorithm. We use a simple but key insight: the divergence of trends between different populations, and, consecutively, between a learned model and minority populations, is analogous to data drift. We explore two strategies (model-splitting and reweighing) to resolve this drift, aiming to improve the overall conformance of models to the underlying data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:30:42Z)
• Measuring Causal Effects of Data Statistics on Language Model's `Factual' Predictions [59.284907093349425]
  Large amounts of training data are one of the major reasons for the high performance of state-of-the-art NLP models. We provide a language for describing how training data influences predictions, through a causal framework. Our framework bypasses the need to retrain expensive models and allows us to estimate causal effects based on observational data alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-28T17:36:24Z)
• FairIF: Boosting Fairness in Deep Learning via Influence Functions with Validation Set Sensitive Attributes [51.02407217197623]
  We propose a two-stage training algorithm named FAIRIF. It minimizes the loss over the reweighted data set where the sample weights are computed. We show that FAIRIF yields models with better fairness-utility trade-offs against various types of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T05:14:48Z)
• Statistical inference for individual fairness [24.622418924551315]
  We focus on the problem of detecting violations of individual fairness in machine learning models. We develop a suite of inference tools for the adversarial cost function. We demonstrate the utility of our tools in a real-world case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-30T22:49:25Z)
• An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlations [98.3066727301239]
  We identify two key properties of the training data that drive this behavior. We show how the inductive bias of models towards "memorizing" fewer examples can cause over parameterization to hurt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-09T01:59:13Z)
• Data and Model Dependencies of Membership Inference Attack [13.951470844348899]
  We provide an empirical analysis of the impact of both the data and ML model properties on the vulnerability of ML techniques to MIA. Our results reveal the relationship between MIA accuracy and properties of the dataset and training model in use. We propose using those data and model properties as regularizers to protect ML models against MIA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-17T09:35:00Z)

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.