The Impact of Differential Feature Under-reporting on Algorithmic Fairness
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the impact of differential feature under-reporting on algorithmic fairness.
- It examines how disparities in the availability of certain features (e.g., income, education level) between demographic groups can lead to unfair outcomes when these features are used in machine learning models.
- The research analyzes the interplay between under-reporting, missing data, and algorithmic bias, providing insights into the challenges of achieving fairness in real-world applications.
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning models are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect people's lives, such as determining loan approvals, job opportunities, or criminal risk assessments. These models rely on data about individuals, including their personal characteristics and behavior. However, the data available for training these models may be incomplete or biased, leading to unfair outcomes.
One key issue explored in this paper is differential feature under-reporting, where certain demographic groups (e.g., racial or ethnic minorities, low-income individuals) have less complete data available for some of the features used in the models. For example, income or education level data may be missing more frequently for certain groups. This can create a mismatch between the data used to train the models and the real-world population, resulting in algorithmic decisions that are biased against the groups with less complete data.
The researchers delve into the nuances of this problem, distinguishing between under-reporting (where data is available but not reported) and missingness (where data is genuinely unavailable). They examine how these different scenarios can impact the fairness of the resulting models, as well as the challenges in identifying and mitigating these issues.
The findings from this research highlight the importance of being aware of potential data biases and their effects on algorithmic fairness. It underscores the need for careful data collection, curation, and model development practices to ensure that machine learning systems do not perpetuate or exacerbate existing societal inequalities.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by distinguishing between two related but distinct concepts: under-reporting and missingness. Under-reporting refers to a scenario where certain demographic groups have features (e.g., income, education level) that are available but not reported in the data, while missingness indicates a genuine lack of data for those features.
The authors then explore how these differential patterns of under-reporting or missingness can impact the fairness of machine learning models. They develop a theoretical framework to analyze the interplay between under-reporting, missing data, and algorithmic bias, considering both individual-level and group-level fairness metrics.
Through a series of experiments using synthetic and real-world datasets, the researchers demonstrate the nuanced effects of under-reporting on different fairness measures, such as demographic parity, equal opportunity, and equalized odds. They show that under-reporting can lead to unfair outcomes, even in situations where the underlying data-generating process is fair.
The paper also discusses strategies for mitigating the impact of under-reporting, including data augmentation techniques and model adjustments. However, the authors emphasize the inherent challenges in addressing this issue, as the root causes of under-reporting may be deeply rooted in societal inequalities and power dynamics.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on algorithmic fairness, highlighting an important and often overlooked issue: the impact of differential feature under-reporting on the fairness of machine learning models. The authors' careful distinction between under-reporting and missingness, and their exploration of the nuanced effects on various fairness metrics, offer important insights.
One potential limitation of the study is the use of synthetic data, which may not fully capture the complexities of real-world data and the underlying factors that contribute to under-reporting. While the authors do include experiments with real-world datasets, further research on the prevalence and impact of under-reporting in diverse real-world applications would be valuable.
Additionally, the paper acknowledges the difficulty in addressing the root causes of under-reporting, which are often deeply embedded in societal structures and power dynamics. While the authors propose some mitigation strategies, the long-term solutions to this challenge may require broader societal and institutional changes that go beyond the scope of this particular study.
Conclusion
The paper highlights the critical role that differential feature under-reporting plays in shaping the fairness of machine learning models. By drawing attention to this issue and providing a rigorous analysis of its effects, the authors contribute to our understanding of the complex interplay between data quality, algorithmic design, and societal inequalities.
As machine learning systems become more pervasive in decision-making processes, it is essential to continuously examine and address the potential biases and unfair outcomes that may arise from the data and practices used to develop these models. The insights from this research underscore the importance of data transparency, careful feature selection, and proactive strategies to mitigate the impact of under-reporting and other data-related challenges on algorithmic fairness.
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 Impact of Differential Feature Under-reporting on Algorithmic Fairness
Nil-Jana Akpinar, Zachary C. Lipton, Alexandra Chouldechova
Predictive risk models in the public sector are commonly developed using administrative data that is more complete for subpopulations that more greatly rely on public services. In the United States, for instance, information on health care utilization is routinely available to government agencies for individuals supported by Medicaid and Medicare, but not for the privately insured. Critiques of public sector algorithms have identified such differential feature under-reporting as a driver of disparities in algorithmic decision-making. Yet this form of data bias remains understudied from a technical viewpoint. While prior work has examined the fairness impacts of additive feature noise and features that are clearly marked as missing, the setting of data missingness absent indicators (i.e. differential feature under-reporting) has been lacking in research attention. In this work, we present an analytically tractable model of differential feature under-reporting which we then use to characterize the impact of this kind of data bias on algorithmic fairness. We demonstrate how standard missing data methods typically fail to mitigate bias in this setting, and propose a new set of methods specifically tailored to differential feature under-reporting. Our results show that, in real world data settings, under-reporting typically leads to increasing disparities. The proposed solution methods show success in mitigating increases in unfairness.
Read more5/6/2024
0
Fairness Issues and Mitigations in (Differentially Private) Socio-demographic Data Processes
Joonhyuk Ko, Juba Ziani, Saswat Das, Matt Williams, Ferdinando Fioretto
Statistical agencies rely on sampling techniques to collect socio-demographic data crucial for policy-making and resource allocation. This paper shows that surveys of important societal relevance introduce sampling errors that unevenly impact group-level estimates, thereby compromising fairness in downstream decisions. To address these issues, this paper introduces an optimization approach modeled on real-world survey design processes, ensuring sampling costs are optimized while maintaining error margins within prescribed tolerances. Additionally, privacy-preserving methods used to determine sampling rates can further impact these fairness issues. The paper explores the impact of differential privacy on the statistics informing the sampling process, revealing a surprising effect: not only the expected negative effect from the addition of noise for differential privacy is negligible, but also this privacy noise can in fact reduce unfairness as it positively biases smaller counts. These findings are validated over an extensive analysis using datasets commonly applied in census statistics.
Read more8/19/2024
✨
0
Feature Importance Disparities for Data Bias Investigations
Peter W. Chang, Leor Fishman, Seth Neel
It is widely held that one cause of downstream bias in classifiers is bias present in the training data. Rectifying such biases may involve context-dependent interventions such as training separate models on subgroups, removing features with bias in the collection process, or even conducting real-world experiments to ascertain sources of bias. Despite the need for such data bias investigations, few automated methods exist to assist practitioners in these efforts. In this paper, we present one such method that given a dataset $X$ consisting of protected and unprotected features, outcomes $y$, and a regressor $h$ that predicts $y$ given $X$, outputs a tuple $(f_j, g)$, with the following property: $g$ corresponds to a subset of the training dataset $(X, y)$, such that the $j^{th}$ feature $f_j$ has much larger (or smaller) influence in the subgroup $g$, than on the dataset overall, which we call feature importance disparity (FID). We show across $4$ datasets and $4$ common feature importance methods of broad interest to the machine learning community that we can efficiently find subgroups with large FID values even over exponentially large subgroup classes and in practice these groups correspond to subgroups with potentially serious bias issues as measured by standard fairness metrics.
Read more6/4/2024
🤷
0
A Systematic and Formal Study of the Impact of Local Differential Privacy on Fairness: Preliminary Results
Karima Makhlouf, Tamara Stefanovic, Heber H. Arcolezi, Catuscia Palamidessi
Machine learning (ML) algorithms rely primarily on the availability of training data, and, depending on the domain, these data may include sensitive information about the data providers, thus leading to significant privacy issues. Differential privacy (DP) is the predominant solution for privacy-preserving ML, and the local model of DP is the preferred choice when the server or the data collector are not trusted. Recent experimental studies have shown that local DP can impact ML prediction for different subgroups of individuals, thus affecting fair decision-making. However, the results are conflicting in the sense that some studies show a positive impact of privacy on fairness while others show a negative one. In this work, we conduct a systematic and formal study of the effect of local DP on fairness. Specifically, we perform a quantitative study of how the fairness of the decisions made by the ML model changes under local DP for different levels of privacy and data distributions. In particular, we provide bounds in terms of the joint distributions and the privacy level, delimiting the extent to which local DP can impact the fairness of the model. We characterize the cases in which privacy reduces discrimination and those with the opposite effect. We validate our theoretical findings on synthetic and real-world datasets. Our results are preliminary in the sense that, for now, we study only the case of one sensitive attribute, and only statistical disparity, conditional statistical disparity, and equal opportunity difference.
Read more5/24/2024