How to be fair? A study of label and selection bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14282v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:43:55 GMT
• Title: How to be fair? A study of label and selection bias
• Authors: Marco Favier, Toon Calders, Sam Pinxteren, Jonathan Meyer,
• Abstract summary: It is widely accepted that biased data leads to biased and potentially unfair models. Several measures for bias in data and model predictions have been proposed, as well as bias mitigation techniques. Despite the myriad of mitigation techniques developed in the past decade, it is still poorly understood under what circumstances which methods work.
• Score: 3.018638214344819
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: It is widely accepted that biased data leads to biased and thus potentially unfair models. Therefore, several measures for bias in data and model predictions have been proposed, as well as bias mitigation techniques whose aim is to learn models that are fair by design. Despite the myriad of mitigation techniques developed in the past decade, however, it is still poorly understood under what circumstances which methods work. Recently, Wick et al. showed, with experiments on synthetic data, that there exist situations in which bias mitigation techniques lead to more accurate models when measured on unbiased data. Nevertheless, in the absence of a thorough mathematical analysis, it remains unclear which techniques are effective under what circumstances. We propose to address this problem by establishing relationships between the type of bias and the effectiveness of a mitigation technique, where we categorize the mitigation techniques by the bias measure they optimize. In this paper we illustrate this principle for label and selection bias on the one hand, and demographic parity and ``We're All Equal'' on the other hand. Our theoretical analysis allows to explain the results of Wick et al. and we also show that there are situations where minimizing fairness measures does not result in the fairest possible distribution.

Related papers

• Improving Bias Mitigation through Bias Experts in Natural Language Understanding [10.363406065066538]
  We propose a new debiasing framework that introduces binary classifiers between the auxiliary model and the main model. Our proposed strategy improves the bias identification ability of the auxiliary model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T16:15:00Z)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• 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)
• Simultaneous Improvement of ML Model Fairness and Performance by Identifying Bias in Data [1.76179873429447]
  We propose a data preprocessing technique that can detect instances ascribing a specific kind of bias that should be removed from the dataset before training. In particular, we claim that in the problem settings where instances exist with similar feature but different labels caused by variation in protected attributes, an inherent bias gets induced in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:04:07Z)
• 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)
• Prisoners of Their Own Devices: How Models Induce Data Bias in Performative Prediction [4.874780144224057]
  A biased model can make decisions that disproportionately harm certain groups in society. Much work has been devoted to measuring unfairness in static ML environments, but not in dynamic, performative prediction ones. We propose a taxonomy to characterize bias in the data, and study cases where it is shaped by model behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T10:56:04Z)
• Optimising Equal Opportunity Fairness in Model Training [60.0947291284978]
  Existing debiasing methods, such as adversarial training and removing protected information from representations, have been shown to reduce bias. We propose two novel training objectives which directly optimise for the widely-used criterion of it equal opportunity, and show that they are effective in reducing bias while maintaining high performance over two classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-05T01:57:58Z)
• A Sandbox Tool to Bias(Stress)-Test Fairness Algorithms [19.86635585740634]
  We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T16:12:19Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)

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.