Addressing Polarization and Unfairness in Performative Prediction
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper addresses the issue of polarization and unfairness in performative prediction, a type of machine learning where the model's predictions can influence the future data distribution.
- The authors propose new algorithms to find performatively stable (PS) solutions, which are predictions that do not change significantly when the model is deployed.
- They also explore the trade-offs between fairness and performative stability, and provide insights into how to achieve both.
Plain English Explanation
In machine learning, there is a phenomenon called performative prediction, where the predictions made by a model can actually change the real-world data that the model is trained on. This can lead to polarization and unfairness.
For example, imagine a model that predicts whether someone will get a loan. If the model is deployed and starts denying loans to certain groups, those groups may start taking actions to improve their chances of getting a loan, which changes the underlying data the model was trained on. This can create a feedback loop that leads to unfair and unstable predictions.
The authors of this paper propose new algorithms to find performatively stable (PS) solutions - predictions that don't change significantly when the model is deployed. They also explore the trade-offs between fairness and performative stability, and provide insights into how to achieve both.
Technical Explanation
The paper starts by providing a formal definition of performative prediction and the concept of performatively stable (PS) solutions. The authors then propose two new iterative algorithms to find PS solutions in the context of a specific class of performative prediction problems called Shapley Decomposition Performative Prediction (SDPP).
The first algorithm, called IPGG, uses a gradient-based approach to iteratively update the model's predictions towards a PS solution. The second algorithm, called IPPGS, is a stochastic version of IPGG that can handle more complex performative settings.
The authors then analyze the theoretical properties of these algorithms, including their convergence guarantees and their ability to trade off between fairness and performative stability. They demonstrate through experiments that their algorithms can effectively find PS solutions and navigate the fairness-stability trade-off.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to the field of performative prediction by proposing new algorithms to address the issues of polarization and unfairness. The authors' analysis of the fairness-stability trade-off is particularly insightful and could inform future research in this area.
However, the paper does not address some potential limitations of the proposed approach. For instance, the algorithms assume that the underlying causal relationships between the model's predictions and the future data distribution are known, which may not always be the case in real-world settings.
Additionally, the paper focuses on a specific class of performative prediction problems (SDPP), and it is unclear how well the proposed algorithms would perform in more general performative settings. Further research is needed to explore the applicability of these techniques to a wider range of performative prediction problems.
Conclusion
This paper proposes new algorithms to address the issues of polarization and unfairness in performative prediction, a type of machine learning where the model's predictions can influence the future data distribution. The authors introduce the concept of performatively stable (PS) solutions and develop two iterative algorithms to find such solutions, while also exploring the trade-offs between fairness and performative stability.
The techniques and insights presented in this paper could have significant implications for the development of more ethical and stable machine learning systems, especially in domains where model predictions can have a profound impact on the real world. As the field of performative prediction continues to evolve, this research provides a valuable foundation for further exploration and advancement.
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
0
Addressing Polarization and Unfairness in Performative Prediction
Kun Jin, Tian Xie, Yang Liu, Xueru Zhang
When machine learning (ML) models are used in applications that involve humans (e.g., online recommendation, school admission, hiring, lending), the model itself may trigger changes in the distribution of targeted data it aims to predict. Performative prediction (PP) is a framework that explicitly considers such model-dependent distribution shifts when learning ML models. While significant efforts have been devoted to finding performative stable (PS) solutions in PP for system robustness, their societal implications are less explored and it is unclear whether PS solutions are aligned with social norms such as fairness. In this paper, we set out to examine the fairness property of PS solutions in performative prediction. We first show that PS solutions can incur severe polarization effects and group-wise loss disparity. Although existing fairness mechanisms commonly used in literature can help mitigate unfairness, they may fail and disrupt the stability under model-dependent distribution shifts. We thus propose novel fairness intervention mechanisms that can simultaneously achieve both stability and fairness in PP settings. Both theoretical analysis and experiments are provided to validate the proposed method.
Read more6/26/2024
0
Algorithmic Fairness in Performative Policy Learning: Escaping the Impossibility of Group Fairness
Seamus Somerstep, Ya'acov Ritov, Yuekai Sun
In many prediction problems, the predictive model affects the distribution of the prediction target. This phenomenon is known as performativity and is often caused by the behavior of individuals with vested interests in the outcome of the predictive model. Although performativity is generally problematic because it manifests as distribution shifts, we develop algorithmic fairness practices that leverage performativity to achieve stronger group fairness guarantees in social classification problems (compared to what is achievable in non-performative settings). In particular, we leverage the policymaker's ability to steer the population to remedy inequities in the long term. A crucial benefit of this approach is that it is possible to resolve the incompatibilities between conflicting group fairness definitions.
Read more6/3/2024
🔮
0
Performative Prediction with Neural Networks
Mehrnaz Mofakhami, Ioannis Mitliagkas, Gauthier Gidel
Performative prediction is a framework for learning models that influence the data they intend to predict. We focus on finding classifiers that are performatively stable, i.e. optimal for the data distribution they induce. Standard convergence results for finding a performatively stable classifier with the method of repeated risk minimization assume that the data distribution is Lipschitz continuous to the model's parameters. Under this assumption, the loss must be strongly convex and smooth in these parameters; otherwise, the method will diverge for some problems. In this work, we instead assume that the data distribution is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the model's predictions, a more natural assumption for performative systems. As a result, we are able to significantly relax the assumptions on the loss function. In particular, we do not need to assume convexity with respect to the model's parameters. As an illustration, we introduce a resampling procedure that models realistic distribution shifts and show that it satisfies our assumptions. We support our theory by showing that one can learn performatively stable classifiers with neural networks making predictions about real data that shift according to our proposed procedure.
Read more8/27/2024
🛠️
0
Plug-in Performative Optimization
Licong Lin, Tijana Zrnic
When predictions are performative, the choice of which predictor to deploy influences the distribution of future observations. The overarching goal in learning under performativity is to find a predictor that has low emph{performative risk}, that is, good performance on its induced distribution. One family of solutions for optimizing the performative risk, including bandits and other derivative-free methods, is agnostic to any structure in the performative feedback, leading to exceedingly slow convergence rates. A complementary family of solutions makes use of explicit emph{models} for the feedback, such as best-response models in strategic classification, enabling faster rates. However, these rates critically rely on the feedback model being correct. In this work we study a general protocol for making use of possibly misspecified models in performative prediction, called emph{plug-in performative optimization}. We show this solution can be far superior to model-agnostic strategies, as long as the misspecification is not too extreme. Our results support the hypothesis that models, even if misspecified, can indeed help with learning in performative settings.
Read more5/29/2024