Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17066v2
• Date: Thu, 01 May 2025 07:20:54 GMT
• Title: Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching
• Authors: Kewen Peng, Yicheng Yang, Hao Zhuo,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of fairness metrics.<n>Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data.<n>We propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias.
• Score: 0.49157446832511503
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness-aware learning aims to mitigate discrimination against specific protected social groups (e.g., those categorized by gender, ethnicity, age) while minimizing predictive performance loss. Despite efforts to improve fairness in machine learning, prior studies have shown that many models remain unfair when measured against various fairness metrics. In this paper, we examine whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of reported fairness metrics. Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data, potentially skewing fairness assessments. To address this, we propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias. FairMatch identifies control and treatment pairs with similar propensity scores in the test set and adjusts decision thresholds for different subgroups accordingly. For samples that cannot be matched, we perform probabilistic calibration using fairness-aware loss functions. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can (a) precisely locate subsets of the test data where the model is unbiased, and (b) significantly reduce bias on the remaining data. Overall, propensity score matching offers a principled way to improve both fairness evaluation and mitigation, without sacrificing predictive performance.

Related papers

• Fair Few-shot Learning with Auxiliary Sets [53.30014767684218]
  In many machine learning (ML) tasks, only very few labeled data samples can be collected, which can lead to inferior fairness performance. In this paper, we define the fairness-aware learning task with limited training samples as the emphfair few-shot learning problem. We devise a novel framework that accumulates fairness-aware knowledge across different meta-training tasks and then generalizes the learned knowledge to meta-test tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T06:31:37Z)
• Correcting Underrepresentation and Intersectional Bias for Classification [49.1574468325115]
  We consider the problem of learning from data corrupted by underrepresentation bias. We show that with a small amount of unbiased data, we can efficiently estimate the group-wise drop-out rates. We show that our algorithm permits efficient learning for model classes of finite VC dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:25:44Z)
• On Comparing Fair Classifiers under Data Bias [42.43344286660331]
  We study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Our experiments show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T13:04:46Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• 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)
• Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks [5.076419064097733]
  This work presents error parity as a regression fairness notion and introduces a testing methodology to assess group fairness. It is followed by a suitable permutation test to compare groups on several statistics to explore disparities and identify impacted groups. Overall, the proposed regression fairness testing methodology fills a gap in the fair machine learning literature and may serve as a part of larger accountability assessments and algorithm audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T17:47:20Z)
• 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)
• Normalise for Fairness: A Simple Normalisation Technique for Fairness in Regression Machine Learning Problems [46.93320580613236]
  We present a simple, yet effective method based on normalisation (FaiReg) for regression problems. We compare it with two standard methods for fairness, namely data balancing and adversarial training. The results show the superior performance of diminishing the effects of unfairness better than data balancing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-02T12:26:25Z)
• Robust Fairness-aware Learning Under Sample Selection Bias [17.09665420515772]
  We propose a framework for robust and fair learning under sample selection bias. We develop two algorithms to handle sample selection bias when test data is both available and unavailable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T23:23:36Z)
• 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)
• Robust Fairness under Covariate Shift [11.151913007808927]
  Making predictions that are fair with regard to protected group membership has become an important requirement for classification algorithms. We propose an approach that obtains the predictor that is robust to the worst-case in terms of target performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-11T04:42:01Z)
• On Adversarial Bias and the Robustness of Fair Machine Learning [11.584571002297217]
  We show that giving the same importance to groups of different sizes and distributions, to counteract the effect of bias in training data, can be in conflict with robustness. An adversary who can control sampling or labeling for a fraction of training data, can reduce the test accuracy significantly beyond what he can achieve on unconstrained models. We analyze the robustness of fair machine learning through an empirical evaluation of attacks on multiple algorithms and benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T18:17:44Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy? [11.435833538081557]
  Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may produce a classifier that not only is biased but also has suboptimal accuracy on the true data distribution. We examine the ability of fairness-constrained ERM to correct this problem. We also consider other recovery methods including reweighting the training data, Equalized Odds, and Demographic Parity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-02T22:00:14Z)

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.