Identifying Reasons for Bias: An Argumentation-Based Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16506v2
• Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:35:42 GMT
• Title: Identifying Reasons for Bias: An Argumentation-Based Approach
• Authors: Madeleine Waller, Odinaldo Rodrigues, Oana Cocarascu
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.
• Score: 2.9465623430708905
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals are classified unfairly. In this paper, we propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. Our method uses a quantitative argumentation framework to represent attribute-value pairs of an individual and of those similar to them, and uses a well-known semantics to identify the attribute-value pairs in the individual contributing most to their different classification. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.

Related papers

• 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)
• Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity [10.144058870887061]
  We argue that individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T14:33:39Z)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• Discriminative Attribution from Counterfactuals [64.94009515033984]
  We present a method for neural network interpretability by combining feature attribution with counterfactual explanations. We show that this method can be used to quantitatively evaluate the performance of feature attribution methods in an objective manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T00:53:34Z)
• Information Theoretic Measures for Fairness-aware Feature Selection [27.06618125828978]
  We develop a framework for fairness-aware feature selection, based on information theoretic measures for the accuracy and discriminatory impacts of features. Specifically, our goal is to design a fairness utility score for each feature which quantifies how this feature influences accurate as well as nondiscriminatory decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T20:11:54Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)
• A Ranking Approach to Fair Classification [11.35838396538348]
  Algorithmic decision systems are increasingly used in areas such as hiring, school admission, or loan approval. In many scenarios, ground-truth labels are unavailable, and instead we have only access to imperfect labels as the result of human-made decisions. We propose a new fair ranking-based decision system, as an alternative to traditional classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T22:51:12Z)
• Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
  Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)
• One-vs.-One Mitigation of Intersectional Bias: A General Method to Extend Fairness-Aware Binary Classification [0.48733623015338234]
  One-vs.-One Mitigation is a process of comparison between each pair of subgroups related to sensitive attributes to the fairness-aware machine learning for binary classification. Our method mitigates the intersectional bias much better than conventional methods in all the settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T11:35:39Z)
• 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)

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.