Reranking individuals: The effect of fair classification within-groups

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13391v2
• Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 08:47:25 GMT
• Title: Reranking individuals: The effect of fair classification within-groups
• Authors: Sofie Goethals, Toon Calders,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.706222947143855
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) finds widespread application across various domains, but it sparks concerns about fairness in its deployment. The prevailing discourse in classification often emphasizes outcome-based metrics comparing sensitive subgroups without a nuanced consideration of the differential impacts within subgroups. Bias mitigation techniques not only affect the ranking of pairs of instances across sensitive groups, but often also significantly affect the ranking of instances within these groups. Such changes are hard to explain and raise concerns regarding the validity of the intervention. Unfortunately, these effects remain under the radar in the accuracy-fairness evaluation framework that is usually applied. Additionally, we illustrate the effect of several popular bias mitigation methods, and how their output often does not reflect real-world scenarios.

Related papers

• The Disparate Benefits of Deep Ensembles [11.303233667605586]
  We investigate the interplay between performance gains from Deep Ensembles and fairness. We find that they unevenly favor different groups in what we refer to as a disparate benefits effect. Our findings show that post-processing is an effective method to mitigate this unfairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:53:01Z)
• Explaining Knock-on Effects of Bias Mitigation [13.46387356280467]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T18:40:37Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking common uncertainty estimation methods with histopathological images under domain shift and label noise [62.997667081978825]
  In high-risk environments, deep learning models need to be able to judge their uncertainty and reject inputs when there is a significant chance of misclassification. We conduct a rigorous evaluation of the most commonly used uncertainty and robustness methods for the classification of Whole Slide Images. We observe that ensembles of methods generally lead to better uncertainty estimates as well as an increased robustness towards domain shifts and label noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T11:34:36Z)
• 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)
• Imputation Strategies Under Clinical Presence: Impact on Algorithmic Fairness [6.218860613388414]
  biases have marked medical history, leading to unequal care affecting marginalised groups. Our work studies how imputation choices affect reconstruction errors across groups and algorithmic fairness properties of downstream predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-13T13:34:05Z)
• Deconfounding Scores: Feature Representations for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap [140.98628848491146]
  We introduce deconfounding scores, which induce better overlap without biasing the target of estimation. We show that deconfounding scores satisfy a zero-covariance condition that is identifiable in observed data. In particular, we show that this technique could be an attractive alternative to standard regularizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T18:50:11Z)
• 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 Robust Fine-grained Recognition by Maximal Separation of Discriminative Features [72.72840552588134]
  We identify the proximity of the latent representations of different classes in fine-grained recognition networks as a key factor to the success of adversarial attacks. We introduce an attention-based regularization mechanism that maximally separates the discriminative latent features of different classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T18:34:45Z)
• Learning Overlapping Representations for the Estimation of Individualized Treatment Effects [97.42686600929211]
  Estimating the likely outcome of alternatives from observational data is a challenging problem. We show that algorithms that learn domain-invariant representations of inputs are often inappropriate. We develop a deep kernel regression algorithm and posterior regularization framework that substantially outperforms the state-of-the-art on a variety of benchmarks data sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-14T12:56:29Z)

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.