Mitigating Nonlinear Algorithmic Bias in Binary Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05429v3
• Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:22:23 GMT
• Title: Mitigating Nonlinear Algorithmic Bias in Binary Classification
• Authors: Wendy Hui, Wai Kwong Lau,
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes the use of causal modeling to detect and mitigate bias that is nonlinear in the protected attribute. We show that the probability of getting correctly classified as "low risk" is lowest among young people. Based on the fitted causal model, the debiased- probability estimates are computed, showing improved fairness with little impact on overall accuracy.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper proposes the use of causal modeling to detect and mitigate algorithmic bias that is nonlinear in the protected attribute. We provide a general overview of our approach. We use the German Credit data set, which is available for download from the UC Irvine Machine Learning Repository, to develop (1) a prediction model, which is treated as a black box, and (2) a causal model for bias mitigation. In this paper, we focus on age bias and the problem of binary classification. We show that the probability of getting correctly classified as "low risk" is lowest among young people. The probability increases with age nonlinearly. To incorporate the nonlinearity into the causal model, we introduce a higher order polynomial term. Based on the fitted causal model, the de-biased probability estimates are computed, showing improved fairness with little impact on overall classification accuracy. Causal modeling is intuitive and, hence, its use can enhance explicability and promotes trust among different stakeholders of AI.

Related papers

• Utilizing Adversarial Examples for Bias Mitigation and Accuracy Enhancement [3.0820287240219795]
  We propose a novel approach to mitigate biases in computer vision models by utilizing counterfactual generation and fine-tuning. Our approach leverages a curriculum learning framework combined with a fine-grained adversarial loss to fine-tune the model using adversarial examples. We validate our approach through both qualitative and quantitative assessments, demonstrating improved bias mitigation and accuracy compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T00:41:32Z)
• Detecting and Mitigating Algorithmic Bias in Binary Classification using Causal Modeling [0.0]
  We show that gender bias in the prediction model is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the causal model in mitigating gender bias by cross-validation. Our novel approach is intuitive, easy-to-use, and can be implemented using existing statistical software tools such as "lavaan" in R.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T02:21:04Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Rethinking Missing Data: Aleatoric Uncertainty-Aware Recommendation [59.500347564280204]
  We propose a new Aleatoric Uncertainty-aware Recommendation (AUR) framework. AUR consists of a new uncertainty estimator along with a normal recommender model. As the chance of mislabeling reflects the potential of a pair, AUR makes recommendations according to the uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-22T04:32:51Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Discovering Invariant Rationales for Graph Neural Networks [104.61908788639052]
  Intrinsic interpretability of graph neural networks (GNNs) is to find a small subset of the input graph's features. We propose a new strategy of discovering invariant rationale (DIR) to construct intrinsically interpretable GNNs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-30T16:43:40Z)
• Debiased Explainable Pairwise Ranking from Implicit Feedback [0.3867363075280543]
  We focus on the state of the art pairwise ranking model, Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) BPR is a black box model that does not explain its outputs, thus limiting the user's trust in the recommendations. We propose a novel explainable loss function and a corresponding Matrix Factorization-based model that generates recommendations along with item-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-30T17:19:37Z)
• On the Role of Optimization in Double Descent: A Least Squares Study [30.44215064390409]
  We show an excess risk bound for the descent gradient solution of the least squares objective. We find that in case of noiseless regression, double descent is explained solely by optimization-related quantities. We empirically explore if our predictions hold for neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-27T09:13:11Z)
• Using Pareto Simulated Annealing to Address Algorithmic Bias in Machine Learning [2.055949720959582]
  We present a multi-objective optimisation strategy that optimises for both balanced accuracy and underestimation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy on one synthetic and two real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T15:51:43Z)
• Why do classifier accuracies show linear trends under distribution shift? [58.40438263312526]
  accuracies of models on one data distribution are approximately linear functions of the accuracies on another distribution. We assume the probability that two models agree in their predictions is higher than what we can infer from their accuracy levels alone. We show that a linear trend must occur when evaluating models on two distributions unless the size of the distribution shift is large.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T07:24:30Z)
• Provable tradeoffs in adversarially robust classification [96.48180210364893]
  We develop and leverage new tools, including recent breakthroughs from probability theory on robust isoperimetry. Our results reveal fundamental tradeoffs between standard and robust accuracy that grow when data is imbalanced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-09T09:58:19Z)

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.