The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper examines the legal and technical challenges of model multiplicity, where an individual may be subject to different outcomes from the same input data due to the use of multiple machine learning models.
• The key issues explored are the cost of arbitrariness for individuals, the potential for unfairness and discrimination, and the inherent trade-offs between diversity and stability in multi-model systems.
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning models are increasingly being used to make important decisions that impact people's lives, such as loan approvals, job applications, and healthcare treatment. However, these models can sometimes produce different outcomes for the same person, even when using the same input data. This is known as "model multiplicity."
The paper argues that model multiplicity can create significant problems for individuals. For example, if a person is denied a loan by one model but approved by another, they may face confusion, frustration, and a lack of recourse. This can be especially concerning when the models produce discriminatory results based on factors like race, gender, or socioeconomic status.
Additionally, the paper discusses the inherent trade-offs between having a diverse set of models (which can capture different perspectives and avoid over-reliance on a single model) and maintaining stability and consistency in the outcomes for individuals. There are also technical and legal challenges in ensuring fair and transparent decision-making when multiple models are involved.
Technical Explanation
The paper builds on previous research on cross-model fairness, the challenges of model multiplicity and arbitrariness, and the legal duty to search for less discriminatory algorithms. The authors also draw insights from work on the inherent trade-offs between diversity and stability in multi-model systems and the use of multiverse analysis to understand the impact of model multiplicity.
The paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the legal and technical challenges posed by model multiplicity. It examines the potential for unfairness and discrimination, the difficulties in ensuring transparency and accountability, and the inherent trade-offs between having a diverse set of models and maintaining consistency for individuals.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-researched examination of the issues surrounding model multiplicity. The authors acknowledge the potential benefits of using multiple models, such as capturing different perspectives and avoiding over-reliance on a single model. However, they also highlight the significant challenges and potential harms that can arise when individuals are subjected to varying outcomes from the same input data.
One potential limitation of the research is that it does not provide specific solutions or guidelines for addressing these challenges. The authors note that further work is needed to develop technical and legal frameworks for ensuring fair and transparent decision-making in multi-model systems.
Additionally, the paper could have explored the broader societal implications of model multiplicity, such as the impact on public trust in automated decision-making systems and the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities.
Conclusion
This paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on the responsible development and deployment of machine learning models. By highlighting the cost of arbitrariness for individuals, the potential for unfairness and discrimination, and the inherent trade-offs in multi-model systems, the authors raise important considerations for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in the field of artificial intelligence.
As machine learning continues to play an increasingly significant role in shaping people's lives, it is crucial that we address the challenges posed by model multiplicity and work towards developing fair, transparent, and accountable decision-making systems that prioritize the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.
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
The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity
Prakhar Ganesh, Ihsan Ibrahim Daldaban, Ignacio Cofone, Golnoosh Farnadi
Model multiplicity, the phenomenon where multiple models achieve similar performance despite different underlying learned functions, introduces arbitrariness in model selection. While this arbitrariness may seem inconsequential in expectation, its impact on individuals can be severe. This paper explores various individual concerns stemming from multiplicity, including the effects of arbitrariness beyond final predictions, disparate arbitrariness for individuals belonging to protected groups, and the challenges associated with the arbitrariness of a single algorithmic system creating a monopoly across various contexts. It provides both an empirical examination of these concerns and a comprehensive analysis from the legal standpoint, addressing how these issues are perceived in the anti-discrimination law in Canada. We conclude the discussion with technical challenges in the current landscape of model multiplicity to meet legal requirements and the legal gap between current law and the implications of arbitrariness in model selection, highlighting relevant future research directions for both disciplines.
Read more9/16/2024
📈
0
Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity
Kacper Sokol, Meelis Kull, Jeffrey Chan, Flora Salim
While data-driven predictive models are a strictly technological construct, they may operate within a social context in which benign engineering choices entail implicit, indirect and unexpected real-life consequences. Fairness of such systems -- pertaining both to individuals and groups -- is one relevant consideration in this space; algorithms can discriminate people across various protected characteristics regardless of whether these properties are included in the data or discernible through proxy variables. To date, this notion has predominantly been studied for a fixed model, often under different classification thresholds, striving to identify and eradicate undesirable, discriminative and possibly unlawful aspects of its operation. Here, we backtrack on this fixed model assumption to propose and explore a novel definition of cross-model fairness where individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models, i.e., in view of utility-based model multiplicity. Since a person may be classified differently across models that are otherwise considered equivalent, this individual could argue for a predictor granting them the most favourable outcome, employing which may have adverse effects on other people. We introduce this scenario with a two-dimensional example and linear classification; then, we present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-life predictive models and data sets that are popular with the algorithmic fairness community; finally, we investigate analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its ramifications in a broader context. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone as doing so is likely to degrade predictive performance.
Read more7/11/2024
🌐
0
When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness
Natasa Krco, Thibault Laugel, Vincent Grari, Jean-Michel Loubes, Marcin Detyniecki
Most research on fair machine learning has prioritized optimizing criteria such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Despite these efforts, there remains a limited understanding of how different bias mitigation strategies affect individual predictions and whether they introduce arbitrariness into the debiasing process. This paper addresses these gaps by exploring whether models that achieve comparable fairness and accuracy metrics impact the same individuals and mitigate bias in a consistent manner. We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions: Impact Size (how many people were affected), Change Direction (positive versus negative changes), Decision Rates (impact on models' acceptance rates), Affected Subpopulations (who was affected), and Neglected Subpopulations (where unfairness persists). This framework is intended to help practitioners understand the impacts of debiasing processes and make better-informed decisions regarding model selection. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
Read more5/24/2024
0
The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms
Emily Black, Logan Koepke, Pauline Kim, Solon Barocas, Mingwei Hsu
Work in computer science has established that, contrary to conventional wisdom, for a given prediction problem there are almost always multiple possible models with equivalent performance--a phenomenon often termed model multiplicity. Critically, different models of equivalent performance can produce different predictions for the same individual, and, in aggregate, exhibit different levels of impacts across demographic groups. Thus, when an algorithmic system displays a disparate impact, model multiplicity suggests that developers could discover an alternative model that performs equally well, but has less discriminatory impact. Indeed, the promise of model multiplicity is that an equally accurate, but less discriminatory algorithm (LDA) almost always exists. But without dedicated exploration, it is unlikely developers will discover potential LDAs. Model multiplicity and the availability of LDAs have significant ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms, in particular for disparate impact doctrine, which has long taken into account the availability of alternatives with less disparate effect when assessing liability. A close reading of legal authorities over the decades reveals that the law has on numerous occasions recognized that the existence of a less discriminatory alternative is sometimes relevant to a defendant's burden of justification at the second step of disparate impact analysis. Indeed, under disparate impact doctrine, it makes little sense to say that a given algorithmic system used by an employer, creditor, or housing provider is necessary if an equally accurate model that exhibits less disparate effect is available and possible to discover with reasonable effort. As a result, we argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.
Read more6/12/2024