Achievable Fairness on Your Data With Utility Guarantees
2402.17106
0
0
📊
Abstract
In machine learning fairness, training models that minimize disparity across different sensitive groups often leads to diminished accuracy, a phenomenon known as the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The severity of this trade-off inherently depends on dataset characteristics such as dataset imbalances or biases and therefore, using a uniform fairness requirement across diverse datasets remains questionable. To address this, we present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve tailored to individual datasets, backed by rigorous statistical guarantees. By utilizing the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework, our approach mitigates the computational burden of having to train multiple models when approximating the trade-off curve. Crucially, we introduce a novel methodology for quantifying uncertainty in our estimates, thereby providing practitioners with a robust framework for auditing model fairness while avoiding false conclusions due to estimation errors. Our experiments spanning tabular (e.g., Adult), image (CelebA), and language (Jigsaw) datasets underscore that our approach not only reliably quantifies the optimum achievable trade-offs across various data modalities but also helps detect suboptimality in SOTA fairness methods.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper addresses the challenge of fairness-accuracy trade-off in machine learning models, where optimizing for fairness across different groups often leads to reduced overall accuracy.
- The researchers present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve for individual datasets, backed by rigorous statistical guarantees.
- Their method utilizes the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework to mitigate the high computational cost of training multiple models to find the trade-off curve.
- Importantly, the researchers introduce a novel way to quantify the uncertainty in their estimates, providing practitioners with a robust framework for auditing model fairness and avoiding false conclusions due to estimation errors.
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning models are often trained to be fair, meaning they perform equally well across different demographic groups. However, this fairness requirement can sometimes lead to a decrease in the overall accuracy of the model, a phenomenon known as the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The severity of this trade-off can depend on the characteristics of the dataset used to train the model, such as imbalances or biases.
To address this issue, the researchers in this paper have developed a new approach that can efficiently estimate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve for a specific dataset. This trade-off curve shows the best balance between fairness and accuracy that can be achieved for that dataset. Importantly, their method also provides a way to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates, which helps ensure that practitioners can make reliable decisions about model fairness without being misled by potential errors in the estimates.
The researchers tested their approach on a variety of datasets, including tabular data, images, and text. Their results show that their method not only accurately captures the fairness-accuracy trade-off, but also helps detect when existing fairness methods are not performing as well as they could be.
Technical Explanation
The researchers' approach involves approximating the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve for a given dataset using a computationally efficient framework. They leverage the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework, which allows them to estimate the trade-off curve without having to train multiple models.
Crucially, the researchers also introduce a novel methodology for quantifying the uncertainty in their estimates of the trade-off curve. This is important because it helps practitioners understand the reliability of the estimates and avoid making decisions based on potentially inaccurate information.
In their experiments, the researchers evaluated their approach on a range of datasets, including tabular data (e.g., Adult), images (CelebA), and text (Jigsaw). They found that their method accurately captured the fairness-accuracy trade-off for these diverse data modalities and also helped identify cases where existing fairness methods were not achieving the optimal balance between fairness and accuracy.
Critical Analysis
The researchers have made a valuable contribution by developing a computationally efficient approach to approximating the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve for individual datasets. This is an important advancement, as the severity of the trade-off can vary significantly depending on the dataset characteristics, and using a one-size-fits-all fairness requirement across diverse datasets may not be optimal.
One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses on a specific fairness metric, equalized odds, and it's unclear how the approach would extend to other fairness metrics. Additionally, the researchers only consider a single model architecture in their experiments, so it's unknown how the approach would perform with different model types or more complex architectures.
Further research could explore the applicability of the researchers' method to a wider range of fairness metrics and model architectures. It would also be interesting to see how the approach would perform in real-world deployment scenarios, where factors such as dataset shifts or evolving societal norms may introduce additional challenges.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel and computationally efficient approach to approximating the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve for individual datasets. By providing a robust way to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates, the researchers have developed a valuable tool for practitioners to audit the fairness of their machine learning models and make informed decisions about the appropriate balance between fairness and accuracy.
The findings of this research have important implications for the field of machine learning, as they highlight the need to consider dataset-specific characteristics when addressing fairness concerns. The researchers' approach represents a significant step towards developing more nuanced and effective fairness-aware machine learning systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🗣️
Utility-Fairness Trade-Offs and How to Find Them
Sepehr Dehdashtian, Bashir Sadeghi, Vishnu Naresh Boddeti
0
0
When building classification systems with demographic fairness considerations, there are two objectives to satisfy: 1) maximizing utility for the specific task and 2) ensuring fairness w.r.t. a known demographic attribute. These objectives often compete, so optimizing both can lead to a trade-off between utility and fairness. While existing works acknowledge the trade-offs and study their limits, two questions remain unanswered: 1) What are the optimal trade-offs between utility and fairness? and 2) How can we numerically quantify these trade-offs from data for a desired prediction task and demographic attribute of interest? This paper addresses these questions. We introduce two utility-fairness trade-offs: the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-off. The trade-offs reveal three regions within the utility-fairness plane, delineating what is fully and partially possible and impossible. We propose U-FaTE, a method to numerically quantify the trade-offs for a given prediction task and group fairness definition from data samples. Based on the trade-offs, we introduce a new scheme for evaluating representations. An extensive evaluation of fair representation learning methods and representations from over 1000 pre-trained models revealed that most current approaches are far from the estimated and achievable fairness-utility trade-offs across multiple datasets and prediction tasks.
4/16/2024
🎲
Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
Meiyu Zhong, Ravi Tandon
0
0
With the growing adoption of machine learning (ML) systems in areas like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it is increasingly critical to guarantee the fairness of decisions assisted by ML. In this paper, we study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy under the statistical notion of equalized odds. We present a new upper bound on the accuracy (that holds for any classifier), as a function of the fairness budget. In addition, our bounds also exhibit dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels and the sensitive group attributes. We validate our theoretical upper bounds through empirical analysis on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School. Specifically, we compare our upper bound to the tradeoffs that are achieved by various existing fair classifiers in the literature. Our results show that achieving high accuracy subject to a low-bias could be fundamentally limited based on the statistical disparity across the groups.
5/17/2024
Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective
Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
0
0
Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
5/27/2024
↗️
How Robust is your Fair Model? Exploring the Robustness of Diverse Fairness Strategies
Edward Small, Wei Shao, Zeliang Zhang, Peihan Liu, Jeffrey Chan, Kacper Sokol, Flora Salim
0
0
With the introduction of machine learning in high-stakes decision making, ensuring algorithmic fairness has become an increasingly important problem to solve. In response to this, many mathematical definitions of fairness have been proposed, and a variety of optimisation techniques have been developed, all designed to maximise a defined notion of fairness. However, fair solutions are reliant on the quality of the training data, and can be highly sensitive to noise. Recent studies have shown that robustness (the ability for a model to perform well on unseen data) plays a significant role in the type of strategy that should be used when approaching a new problem and, hence, measuring the robustness of these strategies has become a fundamental problem. In this work, we therefore propose a new criterion to measure the robustness of various fairness optimisation strategies - the robustness ratio. We conduct multiple extensive experiments on five bench mark fairness data sets using three of the most popular fairness strategies with respect to four of the most popular definitions of fairness. Our experiments empirically show that fairness methods that rely on threshold optimisation are very sensitive to noise in all the evaluated data sets, despite mostly outperforming other methods. This is in contrast to the other two methods, which are less fair for low noise scenarios but fairer for high noise ones. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantitatively evaluate the robustness of fairness optimisation strategies. This can potentially can serve as a guideline in choosing the most suitable fairness strategy for various data sets.
6/4/2024