Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective
2405.15443
0
0
Abstract
Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the tension between fairness and accuracy in machine learning models, taking a causal perspective.
- The authors investigate how different fairness constraints affect model performance and whether there are fundamental trade-offs between fairness and accuracy.
- They analyze several theoretical frameworks, including intrinsic fairness-accuracy trade-offs under equalized odds and utility-fairness trade-offs, to understand the causal relationships underlying these trade-offs.
Plain English Explanation
When building machine learning models, there is often a tension between making the model fair and making it accurate. The authors of this paper explore this trade-off from a causal perspective, looking at how different fairness constraints affect the model's performance.
Imagine you're training a model to predict whether someone will get a loan. You want the model to be accurate, meaning it correctly predicts who will get a loan. But you also want the model to be fair, treating people of different races, genders, or other characteristics equally. These two goals - accuracy and fairness - can sometimes work against each other.
The researchers in this paper look at different theoretical frameworks that try to understand this trade-off. For example, the intrinsic fairness-accuracy trade-offs under equalized odds model suggests there are fundamental limits to how fair and accurate a model can be at the same time. The utility-fairness trade-offs model looks at how you can balance the benefits (utility) and fairness of a model.
By taking a causal perspective - looking at the underlying causes and effects - the researchers hope to better understand this fairness-accuracy trade-off and find ways to build models that are both fair and accurate.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the fundamental trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in machine learning models from a causal perspective. The authors analyze several theoretical frameworks, including:
-
Intrinsic fairness-accuracy trade-offs under equalized odds: This model suggests there are inherent limits to how fair and accurate a model can be at the same time, due to the causal relationships between the variables.
-
Utility-fairness trade-offs: This framework explores how to balance the benefits (utility) and fairness of a model, taking into account the causal structure.
-
Aleatoric and epistemic discrimination: This model distinguishes between different types of discrimination, which can have different implications for fairness interventions.
The authors use causal reasoning to understand how fairness constraints, such as equalized odds or demographic parity, affect model performance and the inherent trade-offs that may arise. They also discuss the potential for predicting fairness in ML software configuration and the bias amplification phenomenon that can occur in some settings.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful causal analysis of the fairness-accuracy trade-off in machine learning, but it also acknowledges several caveats and limitations.
One key limitation is that the theoretical frameworks discussed rely on strong assumptions, such as the availability of causal models and the ability to precisely quantify fairness and utility. In practice, these requirements may be difficult to meet, especially when dealing with complex, real-world datasets.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for unintended consequences or hidden biases that may arise from prioritizing fairness over accuracy, or vice versa. There may be nuanced ethical considerations that the paper does not fully explore.
Further research is needed to better understand the practical implications of these trade-offs and to develop more robust and flexible approaches to balancing fairness and accuracy in machine learning applications. Ongoing work in areas such as aleatoric and epistemic discrimination and predicting fairness in ML software configuration may offer valuable insights in this regard.
Conclusion
This paper takes an important step towards understanding the fundamental trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in machine learning models from a causal perspective. By analyzing various theoretical frameworks, the authors provide insights into the complex relationships between these two important considerations.
The findings suggest that there may be inherent limits to how fair and accurate a model can be simultaneously, and that careful consideration of the causal structure is necessary to navigate these trade-offs. As machine learning systems become increasingly prevalent in high-stakes decision-making, this work highlights the importance of continued research and thoughtful development to ensure these systems are both accurate and fair.
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
Mind the Gap: A Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-Making
Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
0
0
Investigating fairness and equity of automated systems has become a critical field of inquiry. Most of the literature in fair machine learning focuses on defining and achieving fairness criteria in the context of prediction, while not explicitly focusing on how these predictions may be used later on in the pipeline. For instance, if commonly used criteria, such as independence or sufficiency, are satisfied for a prediction score $S$ used for binary classification, they need not be satisfied after an application of a simple thresholding operation on $S$ (as commonly used in practice). In this paper, we take an important step to address this issue in numerous statistical and causal notions of fairness. We introduce the notion of a margin complement, which measures how much a prediction score $S$ changes due to a thresholding operation. We then demonstrate that the marginal difference in the optimal 0/1 predictor $widehat Y$ between groups, written $P(hat y mid x_1) - P(hat y mid x_0)$, can be causally decomposed into the influences of $X$ on the $L_2$-optimal prediction score $S$ and the influences of $X$ on the margin complement $M$, along different causal pathways (direct, indirect, spurious). We then show that under suitable causal assumptions, the influences of $X$ on the prediction score $S$ are equal to the influences of $X$ on the true outcome $Y$. This yields a new decomposition of the disparity in the predictor $widehat Y$ that allows us to disentangle causal differences inherited from the true outcome $Y$ that exists in the real world vs. those coming from the optimization procedure itself. This observation highlights the need for more regulatory oversight due to the potential for bias amplification, and to address this issue we introduce new notions of weak and strong business necessity, together with an algorithm for assessing whether these notions are satisfied.
5/27/2024
🎲
Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
Meiyu Zhong, Ravi Tandon
0
0
With the growing adoption of machine learning (ML) systems in areas like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it is increasingly critical to guarantee the fairness of decisions assisted by ML. In this paper, we study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy under the statistical notion of equalized odds. We present a new upper bound on the accuracy (that holds for any classifier), as a function of the fairness budget. In addition, our bounds also exhibit dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels and the sensitive group attributes. We validate our theoretical upper bounds through empirical analysis on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School. Specifically, we compare our upper bound to the tradeoffs that are achieved by various existing fair classifiers in the literature. Our results show that achieving high accuracy subject to a low-bias could be fundamentally limited based on the statistical disparity across the groups.
5/17/2024
🗣️
Utility-Fairness Trade-Offs and How to Find Them
Sepehr Dehdashtian, Bashir Sadeghi, Vishnu Naresh Boddeti
0
0
When building classification systems with demographic fairness considerations, there are two objectives to satisfy: 1) maximizing utility for the specific task and 2) ensuring fairness w.r.t. a known demographic attribute. These objectives often compete, so optimizing both can lead to a trade-off between utility and fairness. While existing works acknowledge the trade-offs and study their limits, two questions remain unanswered: 1) What are the optimal trade-offs between utility and fairness? and 2) How can we numerically quantify these trade-offs from data for a desired prediction task and demographic attribute of interest? This paper addresses these questions. We introduce two utility-fairness trade-offs: the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-off. The trade-offs reveal three regions within the utility-fairness plane, delineating what is fully and partially possible and impossible. We propose U-FaTE, a method to numerically quantify the trade-offs for a given prediction task and group fairness definition from data samples. Based on the trade-offs, we introduce a new scheme for evaluating representations. An extensive evaluation of fair representation learning methods and representations from over 1000 pre-trained models revealed that most current approaches are far from the estimated and achievable fairness-utility trade-offs across multiple datasets and prediction tasks.
4/16/2024
📊
Achievable Fairness on Your Data With Utility Guarantees
Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, Jean-Francois Ton, Yang Liu
0
0
In machine learning fairness, training models that minimize disparity across different sensitive groups often leads to diminished accuracy, a phenomenon known as the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The severity of this trade-off inherently depends on dataset characteristics such as dataset imbalances or biases and therefore, using a uniform fairness requirement across diverse datasets remains questionable. To address this, we present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve tailored to individual datasets, backed by rigorous statistical guarantees. By utilizing the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework, our approach mitigates the computational burden of having to train multiple models when approximating the trade-off curve. Crucially, we introduce a novel methodology for quantifying uncertainty in our estimates, thereby providing practitioners with a robust framework for auditing model fairness while avoiding false conclusions due to estimation errors. Our experiments spanning tabular (e.g., Adult), image (CelebA), and language (Jigsaw) datasets underscore that our approach not only reliably quantifies the optimum achievable trade-offs across various data modalities but also helps detect suboptimality in SOTA fairness methods.
5/31/2024