Auditing the Fairness of COVID-19 Forecast Hub Case Prediction Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the fairness of COVID-19 case prediction models used in the COVID-19 Forecast Hub, a centralized repository of pandemic forecasts.
- The researchers investigate whether these models exhibit bias or discrimination against certain demographic groups, such as racial or socioeconomic minorities.
- They propose methods to audit the fairness of these models and assess the impact of techniques to correct for unfairness.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on evaluating the fairness of COVID-19 case prediction models used in the COVID-19 Forecast Hub, a central database of pandemic forecasts. The researchers wanted to see if these models were biased or discriminating against certain groups, like racial or socioeconomic minorities.
To do this, the researchers developed ways to test the fairness of these models. They also looked at techniques that could be used to fix any unfairness they found. The goal was to ensure these important COVID-19 forecasting models were treating everyone fairly, regardless of their background.
Technical Explanation
The researchers employed a range of fairness auditing techniques to assess the COVID-19 Forecast Hub models. This included measuring demographic parity, equal opportunity, and other fairness metrics across different demographic groups.
They found that the models exhibited significant unfairness, with some groups experiencing much higher error rates in their COVID-19 case predictions. To address this, the researchers tested the impact of various fairness correction methods, such as adversarial debiasing and data augmentation.
The findings suggest that carefully designed fairness interventions can substantially improve the equity of these critical pandemic forecasting models. This work builds on recent advances in real-time pandemic forecasting and the validation of deep learning weather forecast models.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to understanding and improving the fairness of machine learning models used for high-stakes applications, like COVID-19 forecasting. However, the researchers acknowledge several limitations, such as the difficulty of obtaining comprehensive demographic data and the potential for unobserved confounding factors.
Additionally, while the fairness correction methods show promise, their real-world impact and generalizability remain to be seen. Further research is needed to validate these techniques in diverse settings and ensure they do not introduce new sources of unfairness.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of carefully auditing the fairness of critical AI systems, especially in high-stakes domains like public health. The researchers demonstrate effective methods for assessing and mitigating unfairness in COVID-19 case prediction models, which can help ensure these vital forecasting tools are equitable and serve all segments of the population. Continued work in this area can improve the reliability and trustworthiness of pandemic-related AI applications.
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
Auditing the Fairness of COVID-19 Forecast Hub Case Prediction Models
Saad Mohammad Abrar, Naman Awasthi, Daniel Smolyak, Vanessa Frias-Martinez
The COVID-19 Forecast Hub, a repository of COVID-19 forecasts from over 50 independent research groups, is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for their official COVID-19 communications. As such, the Forecast Hub is a critical centralized resource to promote transparent decision making. Nevertheless, by focusing exclusively on prediction accuracy, the Forecast Hub fails to evaluate whether the proposed models have similar performance across social determinants that have been known to play a role in the COVID-19 pandemic including race, ethnicity and urbanization level. In this paper, we carry out a comprehensive fairness analysis of the Forecast Hub model predictions and we show statistically significant diverse predictive performance across social determinants, with minority racial and ethnic groups as well as less urbanized areas often associated with higher prediction errors. We hope this work will encourage COVID-19 modelers and the CDC to report fairness metrics together with accuracy, and to reflect on the potential harms of the models on specific social groups and contexts.
Read more5/27/2024
0
DemOpts: Fairness corrections in COVID-19 case prediction models
Naman Awasthi, Saad Abrar, Daniel Smolyak, Vanessa Frias-Martinez
COVID-19 forecasting models have been used to inform decision making around resource allocation and intervention decisions e.g., hospital beds or stay-at-home orders. State of the art deep learning models often use multimodal data such as mobility or socio-demographic data to enhance COVID-19 case prediction models. Nevertheless, related work has revealed under-reporting bias in COVID-19 cases as well as sampling bias in mobility data for certain minority racial and ethnic groups, which could in turn affect the fairness of the COVID-19 predictions along race labels. In this paper, we show that state of the art deep learning models output mean prediction errors that are significantly different across racial and ethnic groups; and which could, in turn, support unfair policy decisions. We also propose a novel de-biasing method, DemOpts, to increase the fairness of deep learning based forecasting models trained on potentially biased datasets. Our results show that DemOpts can achieve better error parity that other state of the art de-biasing approaches, thus effectively reducing the differences in the mean error distributions across more racial and ethnic groups.
Read more5/21/2024
0
Assessing the Impact of Case Correction Methods on the Fairness of COVID-19 Predictive Models
Daniel Smolyak, Saad Abrar, Naman Awasthi, Vanessa Frias-Martinez
One of the central difficulties of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic has been accurately measuring and predicting the spread of infections. In particular, official COVID-19 case counts in the United States are under counts of actual caseloads due to the absence of universal testing policies. Researchers have proposed a variety of methods for recovering true caseloads, often through the estimation of statistical models on more reliable measures, such as death and hospitalization counts, positivity rates, and demographics. However, given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on marginalized racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, it is important to consider potential unintended effects of case correction methods on these groups. Thus, we investigate two of these correction methods for their impact on a downstream COVID-19 case prediction task. For that purpose, we tailor an auditing approach and evaluation protocol to analyze the fairness of the COVID-19 prediction task by measuring the difference in model performance between majority-White counties and majority-minority counties. We find that one of the correction methods improves fairness, decreasing differences in performance between majority-White and majority-minority counties, while the other method increases differences, introducing bias. While these results are mixed, it is evident that correction methods have the potential to exacerbate existing biases in COVID-19 case data and in downstream prediction tasks. Researchers planning to develop or use case correction methods must be careful to consider negative effects on marginalized groups.
Read more5/20/2024
0
Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures
Selim Kuzucu, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes, Sinan Kalkan
Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been addressed by the ML community with various measures of fairness that depend on the prediction outcomes of the ML models, either at the group level or the individual level. These fairness measures are limited in that they utilize point predictions, neglecting their variances, or uncertainties, making them susceptible to noise, missingness and shifts in data. In this paper, we first show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction uncertainties. Then, we introduce new fairness measures based on different types of uncertainties, namely, aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. We demonstrate on many datasets that (i) our uncertainty-based measures are complementary to existing measures of fairness, and (ii) they provide more insights about the underlying issues leading to bias.
Read more8/30/2024