Fairness and Unfairness in Binary and Multiclass Classification: Quantifying, Calculating, and Bounding
2206.03234
0
0
💬
Abstract
We propose a new interpretable measure of unfairness, that allows providing a quantitative analysis of classifier fairness, beyond a dichotomous fair/unfair distinction. We show how this measure can be calculated when the classifier's conditional confusion matrices are known. We further propose methods for auditing classifiers for their fairness when the confusion matrices cannot be obtained or even estimated. Our approach lower-bounds the unfairness of a classifier based only on aggregate statistics, which may be provided by the owner of the classifier or collected from freely available data. We use the equalized odds criterion, which we generalize to the multiclass case. We report experiments on data sets representing diverse applications, which demonstrate the effectiveness and the wide range of possible uses of the proposed methodology. An implementation of the procedures proposed in this paper and as the code for running the experiments are provided in https://github.com/sivansabato/unfairness.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Proposes a new way to measure the unfairness of machine learning classifiers
- Allows for a quantitative analysis of fairness beyond just "fair" or "unfair"
- Describes methods for auditing classifiers when the full details of how they work are not available
Plain English Explanation
This paper introduces a new approach for measuring the unfairness of machine learning models, such as those used for making important decisions like loan approvals or bail determinations. The traditional way of evaluating fairness is simply to label a model as either "fair" or "unfair," but the researchers wanted to develop a more nuanced and quantitative way to assess fairness.
Their new unfairness measure allows for a deeper analysis, providing a score that indicates how much a model's decisions differ across different demographic groups. This can help identify areas where a model may be biased, even if it's not considered outright "unfair."
The paper also describes methods for auditing the fairness of models when the full details of how they work are not available. This is important because often organizations don't want to share the inner workings of their models. The proposed techniques can estimate unfairness based on aggregate statistics, without needing access to the model's "black box."
Overall, this research aims to provide a more rigorous and practical way to assess the fairness of AI systems, which is crucial as these technologies become more widely used in high-stakes decision-making.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a new metric called "unfairness" that quantifies how much a classifier's performance differs across demographic groups, based on the equalized odds fairness criterion. This metric can be calculated when the classifier's confusion matrices (which describe its errors) are known for each group.
When the full details of the classifier are not available, the researchers develop techniques to lower-bound the unfairness based only on aggregate statistics. This involves using the classifier's overall accuracy and the demographic breakdown of the dataset to estimate a minimum level of unfairness.
The paper reports experiments on real-world datasets spanning diverse applications, such as predicting recidivism and credit approvals. These experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed unfairness measure and auditing methods in quantifying and identifying fairness issues in practical machine learning systems.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that their unfairness measure has some limitations. It relies on the equalized odds fairness criterion, which may not capture all nuances of fairness. Additionally, the lower-bound estimation technique can only provide a minimum level of unfairness, not a precise value.
Further research could explore other fairness definitions and develop tighter bounds on unfairness without access to detailed model information. There is also a need to understand how these fairness evaluation techniques scale to larger, more complex models, such as those used in natural language processing.
Overall, this paper makes an important contribution by moving beyond simplistic "fair/unfair" labels and providing more sophisticated tools for measuring and auditing algorithmic fairness. As AI systems become more influential in high-stakes decision-making, these kinds of advancements will be crucial for ensuring they are used responsibly and equitably.
Conclusion
This research proposes a new, more nuanced approach for quantifying the unfairness of machine learning classifiers. The unfairness measure allows for a deeper analysis of how a model's performance differs across demographic groups, going beyond a binary "fair/unfair" designation.
The paper also introduces methods for auditing classifier fairness when the full details of the model are not available, which is an important practical consideration. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques in identifying and measuring unfairness in AI systems.
While the proposed approaches have some limitations, this work represents an important step forward in developing rigorous and transparent ways to evaluate the fairness of algorithms that are increasingly shaping consequential decisions in people's lives. As AI systems become more ubiquitous, tools like these will be crucial for promoting accountability and fairness in their use.
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
🎲
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
📈
Metrizing Fairness
Yves Rychener, Bahar Taskesen, Daniel Kuhn
0
0
We study supervised learning problems that have significant effects on individuals from two demographic groups, and we seek predictors that are fair with respect to a group fairness criterion such as statistical parity (SP). A predictor is SP-fair if the distributions of predictions within the two groups are close in Kolmogorov distance, and fairness is achieved by penalizing the dissimilarity of these two distributions in the objective function of the learning problem. In this paper, we identify conditions under which hard SP constraints are guaranteed to improve predictive accuracy. We also showcase conceptual and computational benefits of measuring unfairness with integral probability metrics (IPMs) other than the Kolmogorov distance. Conceptually, we show that the generator of any IPM can be interpreted as a family of utility functions and that unfairness with respect to this IPM arises if individuals in the two demographic groups have diverging expected utilities. We also prove that the unfairness-regularized prediction loss admits unbiased gradient estimators, which are constructed from random mini-batches of training samples, if unfairness is measured by the squared $mathcal L^2$-distance or by a squared maximum mean discrepancy. In this case, the fair learning problem is susceptible to efficient stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithms. Numerical experiments on synthetic and real data show that these SGD algorithms outperform state-of-the-art methods for fair learning in that they achieve superior accuracy-unfairness trade-offs -- sometimes orders of magnitude faster.
6/12/2024
🏅
Differentially Private Fair Binary Classifications
Hrad Ghoukasian, Shahab Asoodeh
0
0
In this work, we investigate binary classification under the constraints of both differential privacy and fairness. We first propose an algorithm based on the decoupling technique for learning a classifier with only fairness guarantee. This algorithm takes in classifiers trained on different demographic groups and generates a single classifier satisfying statistical parity. We then refine this algorithm to incorporate differential privacy. The performance of the final algorithm is rigorously examined in terms of privacy, fairness, and utility guarantees. Empirical evaluations conducted on the Adult and Credit Card datasets illustrate that our algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art in terms of fairness guarantees, while maintaining the same level of privacy and utility.
5/21/2024
The Unfairness of $varepsilon$-Fairness
Tolulope Fadina, Thorsten Schmidt
0
0
Fairness in decision-making processes is often quantified using probabilistic metrics. However, these metrics may not fully capture the real-world consequences of unfairness. In this article, we adopt a utility-based approach to more accurately measure the real-world impacts of decision-making process. In particular, we show that if the concept of $varepsilon$-fairness is employed, it can possibly lead to outcomes that are maximally unfair in the real-world context. Additionally, we address the common issue of unavailable data on false negatives by proposing a reduced setting that still captures essential fairness considerations. We illustrate our findings with two real-world examples: college admissions and credit risk assessment. Our analysis reveals that while traditional probability-based evaluations might suggest fairness, a utility-based approach uncovers the necessary actions to truly achieve equality. For instance, in the college admission case, we find that enhancing completion rates is crucial for ensuring fairness. Summarizing, this paper highlights the importance of considering the real-world context when evaluating fairness.
6/19/2024