Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity

Overview

• Data-driven predictive models can have unexpected real-world consequences, even when the models themselves are technically sound.
• One key consideration is the fairness of these systems, both for individuals and groups, as algorithms can discriminate based on protected characteristics.
• Previous research has focused on identifying and mitigating unfairness in a single, fixed model, but this paper proposes a new definition of "cross-model fairness."

Plain English Explanation

When data-driven predictive models are used to make decisions that affect people's lives, the choices made in creating these models can have unintended consequences. Even if the models themselves are well-designed from an engineering standpoint, they may operate within a social context where their outputs can lead to unfair treatment of individuals or groups.

The concept of fairness is particularly relevant here. Algorithms can discriminate against people based on characteristics like race, gender, or age, even if those properties are not explicitly included in the data used to train the models. Previous research has focused on identifying and addressing unfairness within a single, fixed model, often by adjusting classification thresholds.

However, this paper takes a different approach. It explores a scenario where there are multiple predictive models that are considered equally accurate, but they may classify the same individual differently. In this case, a person could argue for the model that gives them the most favorable outcome, which could have negative consequences for others. This is the idea of "cross-model fairness."

The researchers use a simple two-dimensional example and then examine real-world datasets and models to demonstrate that this type of unfairness can indeed occur in practice. They also explore the analytical properties of cross-model fairness and how it might be difficult to address through technical means alone, as doing so could degrade the overall predictive performance of the models.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by introducing the concept of cross-model fairness, which differs from previous approaches to fairness in machine learning. While prior research has focused on identifying and mitigating unfairness within a single, fixed predictive model, this paper explores a scenario where there are multiple models that are considered equally accurate, but they may classify the same individual differently.

The researchers first demonstrate this idea using a simple two-dimensional example with linear classification. They then present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-world predictive models and datasets that are popular in the algorithmic fairness community.

The key finding is that this type of unfairness, where individuals can be harmed by the

choice of a predictor from a group of equally well-performing models, can readily be found in real-life scenarios. The paper also investigates the analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its broader implications.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises an important and novel issue in the field of algorithmic fairness. By considering the possibility of multiple, equally accurate predictive models, it highlights a previously overlooked source of unfairness that could have significant real-world consequences.

One limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on linear classification tasks. While this provides a clear and accessible example, it would be valuable to explore the phenomenon of cross-model fairness in more complex, non-linear predictive models as well.

Additionally, the paper acknowledges that addressing cross-model unfairness through technical means alone may be difficult, as mitigating this issue could degrade the overall predictive performance of the models. This suggests that a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach involving policymakers, ethicists, and domain experts may be necessary to tackle this challenge effectively.

Further research could also explore the interaction between cross-model fairness and other fairness criteria, such as group-level and individual-level fairness. Understanding how these different fairness considerations might conflict or complement each other could provide valuable insights for developing more comprehensive fairness frameworks.

Conclusion

This paper introduces the novel concept of cross-model fairness, which highlights a previously overlooked source of unfairness in data-driven predictive models. By considering the possibility of multiple, equally accurate models that may classify the same individual differently, the researchers demonstrate that individuals can be harmed by the

choice of a predictor.

The findings suggest that this type of unfairness can occur in real-world scenarios and may be challenging to mitigate through technical means alone, as doing so could degrade the overall predictive performance of the models. This underscores the need for a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to addressing fairness in machine learning systems, involving policymakers, ethicists, and domain experts to ensure these powerful tools are used in a fair and responsible manner.