Towards Fair and Calibrated Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10399v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:41:09 GMT
• Title: Towards Fair and Calibrated Models
• Authors: Anand Brahmbhatt, Vipul Rathore, Mausam and Parag Singla
• Abstract summary: We work with a specific definition of fairness, which closely matches [Biswas et. al. 2019] We show that an existing negative result towards achieving a fair and calibrated model does not hold for our definition of fairness. We propose modifications of existing calibration losses to perform group-wise calibration, as a way of achieving fair and calibrated models.
• Score: 26.74017047721052
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent literature has seen a significant focus on building machine learning models with specific properties such as fairness, i.e., being non-biased with respect to a given set of attributes, calibration i.e., model confidence being aligned with its predictive accuracy, and explainability, i.e., ability to be understandable to humans. While there has been work focusing on each of these aspects individually, researchers have shied away from simultaneously addressing more than one of these dimensions. In this work, we address the problem of building models which are both fair and calibrated. We work with a specific definition of fairness, which closely matches [Biswas et. al. 2019], and has the nice property that Bayes optimal classifier has the maximum possible fairness under our definition. We show that an existing negative result towards achieving a fair and calibrated model [Kleinberg et. al. 2017] does not hold for our definition of fairness. Further, we show that ensuring group-wise calibration with respect to the sensitive attributes automatically results in a fair model under our definition. Using this result, we provide a first cut approach for achieving fair and calibrated models, via a simple post-processing technique based on temperature scaling. We then propose modifications of existing calibration losses to perform group-wise calibration, as a way of achieving fair and calibrated models in a variety of settings. Finally, we perform extensive experimentation of these techniques on a diverse benchmark of datasets, and present insights on the pareto-optimality of the resulting solutions.

Related papers

• Understanding trade-offs in classifier bias with quality-diversity optimization: an application to talent management [2.334978724544296]
  A major struggle for the development of fair AI models lies in the bias implicit in the data available to train such models. We propose a method for visualizing the biases inherent in a dataset and understanding the potential trade-offs between fairness and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T22:14:02Z)
• 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)
• Classes Are Not Equal: An Empirical Study on Image Recognition Fairness [100.36114135663836]
  We experimentally demonstrate that classes are not equal and the fairness issue is prevalent for image classification models across various datasets. Our findings reveal that models tend to exhibit greater prediction biases for classes that are more challenging to recognize. Data augmentation and representation learning algorithms improve overall performance by promoting fairness to some degree in image classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T07:54:50Z)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• 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)
• On Calibrating Semantic Segmentation Models: Analyses and An Algorithm [51.85289816613351]
  We study the problem of semantic segmentation calibration. Model capacity, crop size, multi-scale testing, and prediction correctness have impact on calibration. We propose a simple, unifying, and effective approach, namely selective scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-22T22:05:16Z)
• Simultaneous Improvement of ML Model Fairness and Performance by Identifying Bias in Data [1.76179873429447]
  We propose a data preprocessing technique that can detect instances ascribing a specific kind of bias that should be removed from the dataset before training. In particular, we claim that in the problem settings where instances exist with similar feature but different labels caused by variation in protected attributes, an inherent bias gets induced in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:04:07Z)
• Fairly Accurate: Learning Optimal Accuracy vs. Fairness Tradeoffs for Hate Speech Detection [8.841221697099687]
  We introduce a differentiable measure that enables direct optimization of group fairness in model training. We evaluate our methods on the specific task of hate speech detection. Empirical results across convolutional, sequential, and transformer-based neural architectures show superior empirical accuracy vs. fairness trade-offs over prior work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-15T22:11:25Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)

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.