Fundamental Limits in the Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms -- and How to Avoid Them

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18138v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 03:49:48 GMT
• Title: Fundamental Limits in the Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms -- and How to Avoid Them
• Authors: Benjamin Laufer, Manisch Raghavan, Solon Barocas,
• Abstract summary: Disparate impact doctrine offers an important legal apparatus for targeting unfair data-driven algorithmic decisions. This paper puts forward four fundamental results, which each represent limits to searching for and using less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs) For each of our negative results limiting what is attainable in this setting, we offer positive results demonstrating that there exist effective and low-cost strategies.
• Score: 1.1411550157547312
• License:
• Abstract: Disparate impact doctrine offers an important legal apparatus for targeting unfair data-driven algorithmic decisions. A recent body of work has focused on conceptualizing and operationalizing one particular construct from this doctrine -- the less discriminatory alternative, an alternative policy that reduces disparities while meeting the same business needs of a status quo or baseline policy. This paper puts forward four fundamental results, which each represent limits to searching for and using less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs). (1) Statistically, although LDAs are almost always identifiable in retrospect on fixed populations, making conclusions about how alternative classifiers perform on an unobserved distribution is more difficult. (2) Mathematically, a classifier can only exhibit certain combinations of accuracy and selection rate disparity between groups, given the size of each group and the base rate of the property or outcome of interest in each group. (3) Computationally, a search for a lower-disparity classifier at some baseline level of utility is NP-hard. (4) From a modeling and consumer welfare perspective, defining an LDA only in terms of business needs can lead to LDAs that leave consumers strictly worse off, including members of the disadvantaged group. These findings, which may seem on their face to give firms strong defenses against discrimination claims, only tell part of the story. For each of our negative results limiting what is attainable in this setting, we offer positive results demonstrating that there exist effective and low-cost strategies that are remarkably effective at identifying viable lower-disparity policies.

Related papers

• The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms [4.625678906362822]
  We argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs. Model multiplicity and the availability of LDAs have significant ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms. We argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T21:56:38Z)
• Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective [58.06306331390586]
  We analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We show that enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. We introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T11:19:52Z)
• Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
  Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
• Federated Fairness without Access to Sensitive Groups [12.888927461513472]
  Current approaches to group fairness in federated learning assume the existence of predefined and labeled sensitive groups during training. We propose a new approach to guarantee group fairness that does not rely on any predefined definition of sensitive groups or additional labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T19:24:59Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty [24.401219403555814]
  We argue that ranking can introduce unfairness if the uncertainty of the underlying relevance model differs between groups of options. We propose Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) as a new fairness criterion for ranking. We show that EOR corresponds to a group-wise fair lottery among the relevant options even in the presence of disparate uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T13:49:48Z)
• RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Elimination [2.720659230102122]
  'Algorithmic recourse' offers feasible recovery actions to change unwanted outcomes. We introduce the notion of ranked group-level recourse fairness. We develop a'recourse-aware ranking' solution that satisfies ranked recourse fairness constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T11:53:38Z)
• Reusing the Task-specific Classifier as a Discriminator: Discriminator-free Adversarial Domain Adaptation [55.27563366506407]
  We introduce a discriminator-free adversarial learning network (DALN) for unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) DALN achieves explicit domain alignment and category distinguishment through a unified objective. DALN compares favorably against the existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on a variety of public datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-08T04:40:18Z)
• Fairness-Aware Naive Bayes Classifier for Data with Multiple Sensitive Features [0.0]
  We generalise two-naive-Bayes (2NB) into N-naive-Bayes (NNB) to eliminate the simplification of assuming only two sensitive groups in the data. We investigate its application on data with multiple sensitive features and propose a new constraint and post-processing routine to enforce differential fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-23T13:32:21Z)
• 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)
• A Low Rank Promoting Prior for Unsupervised Contrastive Learning [108.91406719395417]
  We construct a novel probabilistic graphical model that effectively incorporates the low rank promoting prior into the framework of contrastive learning. Our hypothesis explicitly requires that all the samples belonging to the same instance class lie on the same subspace with small dimension. Empirical evidences show that the proposed algorithm clearly surpasses the state-of-the-art approaches on multiple benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-05T15:58:25Z)

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.