Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes: How Far Are We?

Overview

• Existing research on fairness in machine learning (ML) often focuses on a single protected attribute (e.g., race or gender) at a time, which is unrealistic given that many users have multiple protected attributes.
• This paper conducts an extensive study on fairness improvement methods that consider multiple protected attributes.
• The paper analyzes the effectiveness of 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods across different datasets, metrics, and ML models when considering multiple protected attributes.

Plain English Explanation

Machine learning (ML) systems are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect people's lives, such as loan approvals, job recommendations, and medical diagnoses. It's crucial that these systems are fair and unbiased, treating people equally regardless of their personal characteristics like race, gender, or age.

Most previous research on fairness in ML has focused on improving fairness with respect to a single protected attribute, such as race or gender. However, in reality, many people have multiple protected attributes (e.g., a woman of color). This paper examines what happens when you try to make ML systems fair for multiple protected attributes at the same time.

The researchers tested 11 different methods for improving fairness in ML models. They looked at how well these methods worked across various datasets, performance metrics, and types of ML models, all while considering two or more protected attributes.

The results were eye-opening. The researchers found that improving fairness for one protected attribute often led to a significant decrease in fairness for other unconsidered attributes. This occurred in up to 88.3% of the scenarios they tested, on average.

Surprisingly, the researchers also found that maintaining high accuracy in the ML models was still possible when considering multiple protected attributes. However, the impact on other performance metrics, like F1-score, was much greater when handling two protected attributes compared to just one.

These findings have important implications. They suggest that reporting only accuracy as the measure of ML performance is not enough - researchers and developers need to look at a wider range of metrics to fully understand the tradeoffs involved in building fair and equitable AI systems.

Technical Explanation

This paper presents an extensive empirical study on the effectiveness of 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods when considering multiple protected attributes. The researchers evaluated these methods across a variety of datasets, performance metrics, and ML models.

The key experiment design involved training ML models to predict a target variable while optimizing for fairness with respect to two or more protected attributes (e.g., race and gender). The researchers then analyzed how well the fairness-optimized models performed in terms of standard ML metrics like accuracy, F1-score, and various fairness metrics.

The results showed that improving fairness for a single protected attribute can significantly decrease fairness for other unconsidered attributes. This "negative fairness transfer" effect was observed in up to 88.3% of the scenarios tested, with an average of 57.5%.

Surprisingly, the researchers found little difference in accuracy loss when considering single versus multiple protected attributes. This suggests that accuracy can be maintained when optimizing for fairness across multiple attributes. However, the effect on F1-score was about twice as large when handling two protected attributes compared to one.

These findings highlight the importance of reporting a broader range of performance metrics beyond just accuracy when evaluating fair ML systems. Relying solely on accuracy does not provide a complete picture of the tradeoffs involved in building equitable AI.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of fairness improvement methods for ML models with multiple protected attributes. The experimental design is well-conceived, and the results offer important insights into the complex, and sometimes counterintuitive, relationships between fairness, accuracy, and other performance metrics.

One limitation mentioned by the authors is that their study only considered pairwise combinations of protected attributes. It would be valuable to extend the analysis to scenarios with three or more attributes to better reflect real-world diversity. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the specific reasons behind the "negative fairness transfer" effect, which would be an interesting area for further investigation.

Another potential issue is that the study only evaluates fairness at the model-level, without considering potential disparities in the underlying data or the end-user experience. Unfairness can arise from many sources in the ML pipeline, so a holistic, end-to-end perspective on fairness may be necessary.

Despite these caveats, this paper makes a significant contribution to the growing body of research on fair ML. The findings challenge the common practice of reporting only accuracy and highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluating and deploying equitable AI systems.

Conclusion

This research paper presents a thorough investigation into the challenges of improving fairness in machine learning models when considering multiple protected attributes. The key takeaway is that optimizing for fairness with respect to a single attribute can often lead to unintended decreases in fairness for other unconsidered attributes.

These findings have important implications for the development of fair and equitable AI systems. They suggest that researchers and practitioners need to look beyond just accuracy and consider a wider range of performance metrics, including various fairness measures, when evaluating and deploying ML models. Only by taking a more holistic view can we ensure that these powerful technologies are used in a way that is truly fair and inclusive for all.