Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11299v1
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:49:03 GMT
- Title: Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures
- Authors: Selim Kuzucu, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes, Sinan Kalkan
- Abstract summary: Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings.
We show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction uncertainties.
- Score: 15.964921228103243
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad
acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first
necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been
addressed by the ML community with various measures of fairness that depend on
the prediction outcomes of the ML models, either at the group level or the
individual level. These fairness measures are limited in that they utilize
point predictions, neglecting their variances, or uncertainties, making them
susceptible to noise, missingness and shifts in data. In this paper, we first
show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness
measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction
uncertainties. Then, we introduce new fairness measures based on different
types of uncertainties, namely, aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic
uncertainty. We demonstrate on many datasets that (i) our uncertainty-based
measures are complementary to existing measures of fairness, and (ii) they
provide more insights about the underlying issues leading to bias.
Related papers
- Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode.
We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z) - Language Model Cascades: Token-level uncertainty and beyond [65.38515344964647]
Recent advances in language models (LMs) have led to significant improvements in quality on complex NLP tasks.
Cascading offers a simple strategy to achieve more favorable cost-quality tradeoffs.
We show that incorporating token-level uncertainty through learned post-hoc deferral rules can significantly outperform simple aggregation strategies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-15T21:02:48Z) - Second-Order Uncertainty Quantification: Variance-Based Measures [2.3999111269325266]
This paper proposes a novel way to use variance-based measures to quantify uncertainty on the basis of second-order distributions in classification problems.
A distinctive feature of the measures is the ability to reason about uncertainties on a class-based level, which is useful in situations where nuanced decision-making is required.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-30T16:30:52Z) - Introducing an Improved Information-Theoretic Measure of Predictive
Uncertainty [6.3398383724486544]
Predictive uncertainty is commonly measured by the entropy of the Bayesian model average (BMA) predictive distribution.
We introduce a theoretically grounded measure to overcome these limitations.
We find that our introduced measure behaves more reasonably in controlled synthetic tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-14T16:55:12Z) - 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) - A Data-Driven Measure of Relative Uncertainty for Misclassification
Detection [25.947610541430013]
We introduce a data-driven measure of uncertainty relative to an observer for misclassification detection.
By learning patterns in the distribution of soft-predictions, our uncertainty measure can identify misclassified samples.
We demonstrate empirical improvements over multiple image classification tasks, outperforming state-of-the-art misclassification detection methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-02T17:32:03Z) - Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A
Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes.
We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z) - 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) - DEUP: Direct Epistemic Uncertainty Prediction [56.087230230128185]
Epistemic uncertainty is part of out-of-sample prediction error due to the lack of knowledge of the learner.
We propose a principled approach for directly estimating epistemic uncertainty by learning to predict generalization error and subtracting an estimate of aleatoric uncertainty.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-16T23:50:35Z) - When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive
Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty.
We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions.
This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z) - Fair inference on error-prone outcomes [0.0]
We show that, when an error-prone proxy target is used, existing methods to assess and calibrate fairness criteria do not extend to the true target variable of interest.
We suggest a framework resulting from the combination of fair ML methods and measurement models found in the statistical literature.
In a healthcare decision problem, we find that using a latent variable model to account for measurement error removes the unfairness detected previously.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-03-17T10:31:59Z)
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.