Is it Still Fair? A Comparative Evaluation of Fairness Algorithms through the Lens of Covariate Drift

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12428v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 03:18:12 GMT
• Title: Is it Still Fair? A Comparative Evaluation of Fairness Algorithms through the Lens of Covariate Drift
• Authors: Oscar Blessed Deho, Michael Bewong, Selasi Kwashie, Jiuyong Li, Jixue Liu, Lin Liu, Srecko Joksimovic,
• Abstract summary: We study data distributional drift and its impact on fairness algorithms and metrics. In several cases, data distributional drift can lead to serious deterioration of fairness in so-called fair models. Emanating from our findings, we synthesize several policy implications of data distributional drift on fairness algorithms.
• Score: 17.498879317113385
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Over the last few decades, machine learning (ML) applications have grown exponentially, yielding several benefits to society. However, these benefits are tempered with concerns of discriminatory behaviours exhibited by ML models. In this regard, fairness in machine learning has emerged as a priority research area. Consequently, several fairness metrics and algorithms have been developed to mitigate against discriminatory behaviours that ML models may possess. Yet still, very little attention has been paid to the problem of naturally occurring changes in data patterns (\textit{aka} data distributional drift), and its impact on fairness algorithms and metrics. In this work, we study this problem comprehensively by analyzing 4 fairness-unaware baseline algorithms and 7 fairness-aware algorithms, carefully curated to cover the breadth of its typology, across 5 datasets including public and proprietary data, and evaluated them using 3 predictive performance and 10 fairness metrics. In doing so, we show that (1) data distributional drift is not a trivial occurrence, and in several cases can lead to serious deterioration of fairness in so-called fair models; (2) contrary to some existing literature, the size and direction of data distributional drift is not correlated to the resulting size and direction of unfairness; and (3) choice of, and training of fairness algorithms is impacted by the effect of data distributional drift which is largely ignored in the literature. Emanating from our findings, we synthesize several policy implications of data distributional drift on fairness algorithms that can be very relevant to stakeholders and practitioners.

Related papers

• Outlier Detection Bias Busted: Understanding Sources of Algorithmic Bias through Data-centric Factors [28.869581543676947]
  unsupervised outlier detection (OD) has numerous applications in finance, security, etc. This work aims to shed light on the possible sources of unfairness in OD by auditing detection models under different data-centric factors. We find that the OD algorithms under the study all exhibit fairness pitfalls, although differing in which types of data bias they are more susceptible to.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T20:35:32Z)
• Fairness Without Harm: An Influence-Guided Active Sampling Approach [32.173195437797766]
  We aim to train models that mitigate group fairness disparity without causing harm to model accuracy. The current data acquisition methods, such as fair active learning approaches, typically require annotating sensitive attributes. We propose a tractable active data sampling algorithm that does not rely on training group annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T07:57:38Z)
• 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)
• Non-Invasive Fairness in Learning through the Lens of Data Drift [88.37640805363317]
  We show how to improve the fairness of Machine Learning models without altering the data or the learning algorithm. We use a simple but key insight: the divergence of trends between different populations, and, consecutively, between a learned model and minority populations, is analogous to data drift. We explore two strategies (model-splitting and reweighing) to resolve this drift, aiming to improve the overall conformance of models to the underlying data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:30:42Z)
• Chasing Fairness Under Distribution Shift: A Model Weight Perturbation Approach [72.19525160912943]
  We first theoretically demonstrate the inherent connection between distribution shift, data perturbation, and model weight perturbation. We then analyze the sufficient conditions to guarantee fairness for the target dataset. Motivated by these sufficient conditions, we propose robust fairness regularization (RFR)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T17:19:23Z)
• 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)
• Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions [4.159343412286401]
  We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T15:18:30Z)
• FairIF: Boosting Fairness in Deep Learning via Influence Functions with Validation Set Sensitive Attributes [51.02407217197623]
  We propose a two-stage training algorithm named FAIRIF. It minimizes the loss over the reweighted data set where the sample weights are computed. We show that FAIRIF yields models with better fairness-utility trade-offs against various types of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T05:14:48Z)
• Can Active Learning Preemptively Mitigate Fairness Issues? [66.84854430781097]
  dataset bias is one of the prevailing causes of unfairness in machine learning. We study whether models trained with uncertainty-based ALs are fairer in their decisions with respect to a protected class. We also explore the interaction of algorithmic fairness methods such as gradient reversal (GRAD) and BALD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T14:20:22Z)

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.