Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
2405.07393
0
0
🎲
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the trade-off between fairness and accuracy in machine learning (ML) systems, specifically focusing on the statistical notion of "equalized odds."
- The researchers present a new upper bound on the accuracy that can be achieved by any classifier, as a function of the fairness budget.
- The bounds also show dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels, and sensitive group attributes.
- The theoretical upper bounds are validated through empirical analysis on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School.
Plain English Explanation
As machine learning (ML) systems are increasingly used in high-stakes decisions like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it's crucial to ensure their fairness. This paper looks at the balance between accuracy and fairness, using a specific fairness concept called "equalized odds."
The researchers developed a new mathematical limit on how accurate an ML system can be, based on how much fairness it needs to maintain. This limit also depends on the characteristics of the data and the sensitive attributes (like race or gender) being considered.
To test this, the team compared their theoretical limits to the fairness-accuracy trade-offs achieved by various existing fair ML methods in the literature. They did this using three real-world datasets: COMPAS (a criminal risk assessment tool), Adult (income data), and Law School (admissions data).
The key finding is that maintaining high accuracy while also keeping bias low can be fundamentally limited by the inherent statistical differences across the groups being considered. This suggests there may be hard limits on how fair and accurate these types of ML systems can be, based on the data they're working with.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy under the statistical notion of "equalized odds." Equalized odds requires that the true positive rate and false positive rate be the same across different sensitive groups (e.g., race or gender).
The researchers present a new upper bound on the accuracy (that holds for any classifier), as a function of the fairness budget. This fairness budget quantifies how much disparity in equalized odds is tolerated. The bounds also show dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels, and the sensitive group attributes.
To validate the theoretical bounds, the authors conduct empirical analyses on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School. They compare their upper bound to the fairness-accuracy trade-offs achieved by various existing fair classifiers in the literature, such as Flexible Fairness Learning and Equalised Odds.
The results show that achieving high accuracy subject to low bias could be fundamentally limited based on the inherent statistical disparities across the groups. This suggests there may be fundamental limitations on how fair and accurate these types of ML systems can be, due to the characteristics of the underlying data.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a theoretically grounded analysis of the fairness-accuracy trade-off, which is an important consideration as ML systems become more widely deployed in high-stakes domains. The upper bounds developed offer insights into the inherent limitations that may exist, based on the data and group statistics.
However, the analysis is limited to the specific fairness notion of equalized odds, which may not capture all aspects of fairness that are relevant in practice. Other fairness definitions, such as equal opportunity or individual fairness, could lead to different trade-offs and limitations.
Additionally, the paper focuses on classification tasks, but many real-world ML applications involve more complex decision-making processes. Further research is needed to understand the fairness-accuracy trade-offs in these broader settings.
Overall, the paper provides a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on algorithmic fairness, highlighting the fundamental statistical limits that may constrain the design of fair and accurate ML systems.
Conclusion
This paper examines the inherent trade-off between fairness and accuracy in machine learning systems, focusing on the statistical notion of "equalized odds." The researchers present a new theoretical upper bound on the accuracy that can be achieved by any classifier, as a function of the fairness budget and the underlying data statistics.
The empirical analysis on real-world datasets suggests that maintaining high accuracy while also keeping bias low may be fundamentally limited by the inherent statistical disparities across different groups. This finding has important implications for the design and deployment of fair ML systems in high-stakes domains, as it suggests there may be hard limits on how accurate and fair these systems can be.
Further research is needed to explore fairness-accuracy trade-offs in more complex decision-making scenarios and under different fairness definitions. Nevertheless, this paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion on algorithmic fairness and the challenges of building fair and accurate ML systems.
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
📊
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
Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective
Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
0
0
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.
5/27/2024
👁️
Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions
Hao Wang, Luxi He, Rui Gao, Flavio P. Calmon
0
0
Machine learning (ML) models can underperform on certain population groups due to choices made during model development and bias inherent in the data. We categorize sources of discrimination in the ML pipeline into two classes: aleatoric discrimination, which is inherent in the data distribution, and epistemic discrimination, which is due to decisions made during model development. We quantify aleatoric discrimination by determining the performance limits of a model under fairness constraints, assuming perfect knowledge of the data distribution. We demonstrate how to characterize aleatoric discrimination by applying Blackwell's results on comparing statistical experiments. We then quantify epistemic discrimination as the gap between a model's accuracy when fairness constraints are applied and the limit posed by aleatoric discrimination. We apply this approach to benchmark existing fairness interventions and investigate fairness risks in data with missing values. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art fairness interventions are effective at removing epistemic discrimination on standard (overused) tabular datasets. However, when data has missing values, there is still significant room for improvement in handling aleatoric discrimination.
4/17/2024
💬
Fairness and Unfairness in Binary and Multiclass Classification: Quantifying, Calculating, and Bounding
Sivan Sabato, Eran Treister, Elad Yom-Tov
0
0
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.
4/9/2024