Explaining Knock-on Effects of Bias Mitigation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00765v1
• Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:40:37 GMT
• Title: Explaining Knock-on Effects of Bias Mitigation
• Authors: Svetoslav Nizhnichenkov, Rahul Nair, Elizabeth Daly, Brian Mac Namee
• Abstract summary: In machine learning systems, bias mitigation approaches aim to make outcomes fairer across privileged and unprivileged groups. In this paper, we aim to characterise impacted cohorts when mitigation interventions are applied. We examine a range of bias mitigation strategies that work at various stages of the model life cycle. We show that all tested mitigation strategies negatively impact a non-trivial fraction of cases, i.e., people who receive unfavourable outcomes solely on account of mitigation efforts.
• Score: 13.46387356280467
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In machine learning systems, bias mitigation approaches aim to make outcomes fairer across privileged and unprivileged groups. Bias mitigation methods work in different ways and have known "waterfall" effects, e.g., mitigating bias at one place may manifest bias elsewhere. In this paper, we aim to characterise impacted cohorts when mitigation interventions are applied. To do so, we treat intervention effects as a classification task and learn an explainable meta-classifier to identify cohorts that have altered outcomes. We examine a range of bias mitigation strategies that work at various stages of the model life cycle. We empirically demonstrate that our meta-classifier is able to uncover impacted cohorts. Further, we show that all tested mitigation strategies negatively impact a non-trivial fraction of cases, i.e., people who receive unfavourable outcomes solely on account of mitigation efforts. This is despite improvement in fairness metrics. We use these results as a basis to argue for more careful audits of static mitigation interventions that go beyond aggregate metrics.

Related papers

• Indiscriminate Disruption of Conditional Inference on Multivariate Gaussians [60.22542847840578]
  Despite advances in adversarial machine learning, inference for Gaussian models in the presence of an adversary is notably understudied. We consider a self-interested attacker who wishes to disrupt a decisionmaker's conditional inference and subsequent actions by corrupting a set of evidentiary variables. To avoid detection, the attacker also desires the attack to appear plausible wherein plausibility is determined by the density of the corrupted evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T17:46:55Z)
• Reranking individuals: The effect of fair classification within-groups [3.706222947143855]
  Bias mitigation techniques affect the ranking of pairs of instances across sensitive groups. These effects remain under the radar in the accuracy-fairness evaluation framework. We illustrate the effect of several popular bias mitigation methods, and how their output often does not reflect real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T11:41:30Z)
• Causal Inference from Text: Unveiling Interactions between Variables [20.677407402398405]
  Existing methods only account for confounding covariables that affect both treatment and outcome. This bias arises from insufficient consideration of non-confounding covariables. In this work, we aim to mitigate the bias by unveiling interactions between different variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T11:29:44Z)
• Delving into Identify-Emphasize Paradigm for Combating Unknown Bias [52.76758938921129]
  We propose an effective bias-conflicting scoring method (ECS) to boost the identification accuracy. We also propose gradient alignment (GA) to balance the contributions of the mined bias-aligned and bias-conflicting samples. Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets in various settings, demonstrating that the proposed solution can mitigate the impact of unknown biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T14:50:24Z)
• When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness [8.367620276482056]
  We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T16:53:52Z)
• How Far Can It Go?: On Intrinsic Gender Bias Mitigation for Text Classification [12.165921897192902]
  We investigate the effects that some of the major intrinsic gender bias mitigation strategies have on downstream text classification tasks. We show that each mitigation technique is able to hide the bias from some of the intrinsic bias measures but not all. We recommend that intrinsic bias mitigation techniques should be combined with other fairness interventions for downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T13:05:48Z)
• 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)
• Fair Effect Attribution in Parallel Online Experiments [57.13281584606437]
  A/B tests serve the purpose of reliably identifying the effect of changes introduced in online services. It is common for online platforms to run a large number of simultaneous experiments by splitting incoming user traffic randomly. Despite a perfect randomization between different groups, simultaneous experiments can interact with each other and create a negative impact on average population outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T17:15:51Z)
• Cascaded Debiasing: Studying the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Fairness-Enhancing Interventions [48.98659895355356]
  This paper investigates the cumulative effect of multiple fairness enhancing interventions at different stages of the machine learning (ML) pipeline. Applying multiple interventions results in better fairness and lower utility than individual interventions on aggregate. On the downside, fairness-enhancing interventions can negatively impact different population groups, especially the privileged group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T09:20:58Z)
• Fair Classification with Group-Dependent Label Noise [6.324366770332667]
  This work examines how to train fair classifiers in settings where training labels are corrupted with random noise. We show that naively imposing parity constraints on demographic disparity measures, without accounting for heterogeneous and group-dependent error rates, can decrease both the accuracy and the fairness of the resulting classifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-31T22:35:01Z)
• Almost-Matching-Exactly for Treatment Effect Estimation under Network Interference [73.23326654892963]
  We propose a matching method that recovers direct treatment effects from randomized experiments where units are connected in an observed network. Our method matches units almost exactly on counts of unique subgraphs within their neighborhood graphs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T15:21:20Z)

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.