Local Causal Discovery for Structural Evidence of Direct Discrimination

Read original: arXiv:2405.14848 - Published 8/28/2024 by Jacqueline Maasch, Kyra Gan, Violet Chen, Agni Orfanoudaki, Nil-Jana Akpinar, Fei Wang

🔄

Overview

Fairness is a critical objective in policy design and algorithmic decision-making.
Identifying the causal pathways of unfairness requires knowledge of the underlying structural causal model, which may be incomplete or unavailable.
This limits the practicality of causal fairness analysis in complex or low-knowledge domains.
To mitigate this practicality gap, the authors advocate for developing efficient causal discovery methods for fairness applications.
They introduce a new algorithm called Local Discovery for Direct Discrimination (LD3) that can recover structural evidence of direct discrimination in polynomial time.
The paper also proposes a graphical criterion for identifying the weighted controlled direct effect (CDE), a measure of direct discrimination, and shows that LD3 can satisfy this criterion.
The authors use a case study of liver transplant allocation to highlight the potential impact of LD3 for modeling fairness in complex decision systems.

Plain English Explanation

Fairness is a crucial goal when creating policies and algorithms that make decisions. To understand why something is unfair, we need to know the underlying causes, which are often described by a causal model. However, in many complex situations, we may not have a complete understanding of the causal model, making it challenging to analyze fairness.

To address this, the researchers in this paper have developed a new algorithm called LD3 that can efficiently discover the causal pathways leading to unfairness, even when the full causal model is not known. LD3 performs a series of statistical tests to uncover the direct connections between different factors that contribute to unfair decisions.

Additionally, the paper introduces a way to measure the degree of direct unfairness using a concept called the weighted controlled direct effect (CDE). LD3 can provide the information needed to calculate this measure of unfairness, making it more accessible for researchers and policymakers.

The researchers use the example of liver transplant allocation to show how LD3 can be used to model fairness in complex decision-making systems. Compared to other methods, LD3 is much faster, taking a fraction of the time to run, while still providing plausible insights into the causal factors behind unfairness.

Technical Explanation

The paper introduces a new algorithm called Local Discovery for Direct Discrimination (LD3) that can efficiently recover structural evidence of direct discrimination in polynomial time. LD3 performs a linear number of conditional independence tests with respect to variable set size, making it more scalable than previous causal discovery methods.

The authors also propose a graphical criterion for identifying the weighted controlled direct effect (CDE), a causal fairness measure that quantifies the degree of direct discrimination. They prove that the knowledge returned by LD3 satisfies this criterion, increasing the accessibility of the weighted CDE as a fairness metric.

To demonstrate the potential impact of LD3, the researchers use a case study of liver transplant allocation. They show that LD3 can uncover more plausible causal relations compared to baseline methods, which took 197 to 5870 times longer to execute.

The key technical contributions of the paper are:

The introduction of the LD3 algorithm, a polynomial-time causal discovery method for identifying direct discrimination.
A graphical criterion for the weighted CDE, a causal fairness measure, and a proof that LD3 can satisfy this criterion.
A case study on liver transplant allocation, highlighting the efficiency and plausibility of LD3 compared to other causal discovery techniques.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a promising approach to efficiently discovering causal evidence of unfairness, which is a critical step in addressing algorithmic bias and discrimination. The authors' focus on developing practical causal discovery methods is well-justified, as the reliance on complete causal models is a significant limitation in many real-world applications.

However, the paper does not address some important caveats and potential limitations of the LD3 algorithm. For example, the authors acknowledge that LD3 relies on the assumption of linear relationships, which may not hold in all domains. Additionally, the paper does not explore the sensitivity of LD3 to violations of its underlying assumptions, such as the presence of unobserved confounders or non-linear causal relationships.

Furthermore, while the case study on liver transplant allocation is informative, it would be valuable to see the performance of LD3 evaluated on a broader range of fairness-critical domains, such as hiring, lending, or criminal justice. This would help to better understand the generalizability and limitations of the approach.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by introducing an efficient causal discovery method for fairness applications. However, further research is needed to fully assess the robustness and broader applicability of LD3, as well as to explore complementary techniques for causal fairness analysis in complex, low-knowledge domains.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel algorithm, LD3, that can efficiently recover structural evidence of direct discrimination in algorithmic decision-making systems. By addressing the practicality gap in causal fairness analysis, LD3 has the potential to significantly improve our ability to identify and mitigate unfairness in a wide range of policy and decision-making contexts.

The introduction of a graphical criterion for the weighted CDE, a causal fairness measure, and the demonstration of LD3's ability to satisfy this criterion, further enhances the accessibility and interpretability of causal fairness analysis. The case study on liver transplant allocation showcases the real-world relevance of this research and the advantages of LD3 over existing causal discovery methods.

As algorithmic decision-making becomes increasingly prevalent, the need for robust and efficient fairness analysis tools is paramount. The work presented in this paper represents an important step forward in addressing this challenge and promoting more equitable and transparent decision-making systems.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

🔄

Local Causal Discovery for Structural Evidence of Direct Discrimination

Jacqueline Maasch, Kyra Gan, Violet Chen, Agni Orfanoudaki, Nil-Jana Akpinar, Fei Wang

Identifying the causal pathways of unfairness is a critical objective in improving policy design and algorithmic decision-making. Prior work in causal fairness analysis often requires knowledge of the causal graph, hindering practical applications in complex or low-knowledge domains. Moreover, global discovery methods that learn causal structure from data can result in unstable performance with finite samples, potentially leading to contradictory fairness conclusions. To mitigate these issues, we introduce local discovery for direct discrimination (LD3): a method that uncovers structural evidence of direct discrimination by identifying the causal parents of an outcome variable. LD3 performs a linear number of conditional independence tests relative to variable set size, and allows for latent confounding under the sufficient condition that no parent of the outcome is latent. We show that LD3 returns a valid adjustment set (VAS) under a new graphical criterion for the weighted controlled direct effect, a qualitative indicator of direct discrimination. LD3 limits unnecessary adjustment, providing interpretable VAS for assessing unfairness. We use LD3 to analyze causal fairness in two complex decision systems: criminal recidivism prediction and liver transplant allocation. LD3 was more time-efficient and returned more plausible results on real-world data than baselines, which took 46x to 5870x longer to execute.

8/28/2024

🤷

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.

5/24/2024

Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective

Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim

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

The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms

Emily Black, Logan Koepke, Pauline Kim, Solon Barocas, Mingwei Hsu

Work in computer science has established that, contrary to conventional wisdom, for a given prediction problem there are almost always multiple possible models with equivalent performance--a phenomenon often termed model multiplicity. Critically, different models of equivalent performance can produce different predictions for the same individual, and, in aggregate, exhibit different levels of impacts across demographic groups. Thus, when an algorithmic system displays a disparate impact, model multiplicity suggests that developers could discover an alternative model that performs equally well, but has less discriminatory impact. Indeed, the promise of model multiplicity is that an equally accurate, but less discriminatory algorithm (LDA) almost always exists. But without dedicated exploration, it is unlikely developers will discover potential LDAs. Model multiplicity and the availability of LDAs have significant ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms, in particular for disparate impact doctrine, which has long taken into account the availability of alternatives with less disparate effect when assessing liability. A close reading of legal authorities over the decades reveals that the law has on numerous occasions recognized that the existence of a less discriminatory alternative is sometimes relevant to a defendant's burden of justification at the second step of disparate impact analysis. Indeed, under disparate impact doctrine, it makes little sense to say that a given algorithmic system used by an employer, creditor, or housing provider is necessary if an equally accurate model that exhibits less disparate effect is available and possible to discover with reasonable effort. As a result, we argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.

6/12/2024