On the Consistency of Fairness Measurement Methods for Regression Tasks
0
âď¸
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- As Machine Learning (ML) techniques become more prevalent in the real world, it is crucial to ensure fairness in their application.
- Measuring fairness is a key step, and various metrics have been proposed in the past, but they are computationally intractable in the regression domain.
- Past literature has proposed methods to approximate these fairness metrics, but the consistency of these approximations has not been thoroughly evaluated.
- This paper aims to address this gap by comprehensively studying the consistency of various fairness measurement methods in regression tasks.
Plain English Explanation
Machine Learning (ML) models are being used more and more in real-world applications, and it's important to make sure these models are fair and unbiased. One way to ensure fairness is to measure it, and researchers have come up with different ways to do this. However, these fairness measurement methods are easy to use for classification problems, but they become very computationally complex when dealing with regression problems (where the output is a number instead of a category).
To address this challenge, previous studies have proposed ways to approximate these fairness metrics for regression problems. But these approximation methods haven't been thoroughly tested to see how consistent their results are. This paper aims to fill that gap by running a lot of experiments to compare the different fairness measurement methods and see how well they align with each other on various regression tasks.
Technical Explanation
This paper conducts an extensive set of experiments to study the consistency of different fairness measurement methods in the regression domain. The researchers looked at various regression tasks and compared the outputs of different fairness approximation algorithms to see how well they aligned with each other.
The key finding is that while some fairness measurement approaches show strong consistency across regression tasks, certain methods exhibit relatively poor consistency in certain regression tasks. This suggests that a more principled approach is needed for measuring fairness in regression problems, as the current approximation methods may not be reliable enough.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution by highlighting the inconsistencies in fairness measurement for regression tasks, which is an important issue as ML models become more widely deployed. However, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential reasons for these inconsistencies and provided more guidance on how to develop more robust fairness measurement approaches for regression.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential trade-offs or tensions between different fairness metrics, which is an important consideration when trying to ensure fair ML systems. Further research is needed to better understand the relationships and tradeoffs between various fairness notions.
Overall, this paper takes an important step in evaluating the reliability of fairness approximation methods, but more work is needed to develop a comprehensive framework for ensuring fairness in ML regression tasks.
Conclusion
This paper reveals that while some fairness measurement approaches show strong consistency across regression tasks, certain methods exhibit relatively poor consistency in certain regression tasks. This finding highlights the need for a more principled approach to measuring fairness in the regression domain, as the current approximation methods may not be reliable enough.
As ML models become more widely deployed in real-world applications, ensuring fairness is crucial. This paper provides valuable insights into the limitations of existing fairness measurement techniques, which will hopefully spur further research and development of more robust and reliable fairness evaluation methods for regression problems.
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
âď¸
0
On the Consistency of Fairness Measurement Methods for Regression Tasks
Abdalwahab Almajed, Maryam Tabar, Peyman Najafirad
With growing applications of Machine Learning (ML) techniques in the real world, it is highly important to ensure that these models work in an equitable manner. One main step in ensuring fairness is to effectively measure fairness, and to this end, various metrics have been proposed in the past literature. While the computation of those metrics are straightforward in the classification set-up, it is computationally intractable in the regression domain. To address the challenge of computational intractability, past literature proposed various methods to approximate such metrics. However, they did not verify the extent to which the output of such approximation algorithms are consistent with each other. To fill this gap, this paper comprehensively studies the consistency of the output of various fairness measurement methods through conducting an extensive set of experiments on various regression tasks. As a result, it finds that while some fairness measurement approaches show strong consistency across various regression tasks, certain methods show a relatively poor consistency in certain regression tasks. This, in turn, calls for a more principled approach for measuring fairness in the regression domain.
Read more6/21/2024
âď¸
0
Normalise for Fairness: A Simple Normalisation Technique for Fairness in Regression Machine Learning Problems
Mostafa M. Amin, Bjorn W. Schuller
Algorithms and Machine Learning (ML) are increasingly affecting everyday life and several decision-making processes, where ML has an advantage due to scalability or superior performance. Fairness in such applications is crucial, where models should not discriminate their results based on race, gender, or other protected groups. This is especially crucial for models affecting very sensitive topics, like interview invitation or recidivism prediction. Fairness is not commonly studied for regression problems compared to binary classification problems; hence, we present a simple, yet effective method based on normalisation (FaiReg), which minimises the impact of unfairness in regression problems, especially due to labelling bias. We present a theoretical analysis of the method, in addition to an empirical comparison against two standard methods for fairness, namely data balancing and adversarial training. We also include a hybrid formulation (FaiRegH), merging the presented method with data balancing, in an attempt to face labelling and sampling biases simultaneously. The experiments are conducted on the multimodal dataset First Impressions (FI) with various labels, namely Big-Five personality prediction and interview screening score. The results show the superior performance of diminishing the effects of unfairness better than data balancing, also without deteriorating the performance of the original problem as much as adversarial training. Fairness is evaluated based on the Equal Accuracy (EA) and Statistical Parity (SP) constraints. The experiments present a setup that enhances the fairness for several protected variables simultaneously.
Read more8/21/2024
0
Does Machine Bring in Extra Bias in Learning? Approximating Fairness in Models Promptly
Yijun Bian, Yujie Luo
Providing various machine learning (ML) applications in the real world, concerns about discrimination hidden in ML models are growing, particularly in high-stakes domains. Existing techniques for assessing the discrimination level of ML models include commonly used group and individual fairness measures. However, these two types of fairness measures are usually hard to be compatible with each other, and even two different group fairness measures might be incompatible as well. To address this issue, we investigate to evaluate the discrimination level of classifiers from a manifold perspective and propose a harmonic fairness measure via manifolds (HFM) based on distances between sets. Yet the direct calculation of distances might be too expensive to afford, reducing its practical applicability. Therefore, we devise an approximation algorithm named Approximation of distance between sets (ApproxDist) to facilitate accurate estimation of distances, and we further demonstrate its algorithmic effectiveness under certain reasonable assumptions. Empirical results indicate that the proposed fairness measure HFM is valid and that the proposed ApproxDist is effective and efficient.
Read more5/16/2024
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