Mind the Gap: A Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-Making
2405.15446
0
0
Abstract
Investigating fairness and equity of automated systems has become a critical field of inquiry. Most of the literature in fair machine learning focuses on defining and achieving fairness criteria in the context of prediction, while not explicitly focusing on how these predictions may be used later on in the pipeline. For instance, if commonly used criteria, such as independence or sufficiency, are satisfied for a prediction score $S$ used for binary classification, they need not be satisfied after an application of a simple thresholding operation on $S$ (as commonly used in practice). In this paper, we take an important step to address this issue in numerous statistical and causal notions of fairness. We introduce the notion of a margin complement, which measures how much a prediction score $S$ changes due to a thresholding operation. We then demonstrate that the marginal difference in the optimal 0/1 predictor $widehat Y$ between groups, written $P(hat y mid x_1) - P(hat y mid x_0)$, can be causally decomposed into the influences of $X$ on the $L_2$-optimal prediction score $S$ and the influences of $X$ on the margin complement $M$, along different causal pathways (direct, indirect, spurious). We then show that under suitable causal assumptions, the influences of $X$ on the prediction score $S$ are equal to the influences of $X$ on the true outcome $Y$. This yields a new decomposition of the disparity in the predictor $widehat Y$ that allows us to disentangle causal differences inherited from the true outcome $Y$ that exists in the real world vs. those coming from the optimization procedure itself. This observation highlights the need for more regulatory oversight due to the potential for bias amplification, and to address this issue we introduce new notions of weak and strong business necessity, together with an algorithm for assessing whether these notions are satisfied.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the phenomenon of bias amplification in predictive models and decision-making, examining it from a causal perspective.
- The researchers investigate how biases can be introduced and amplified through the data generation process and model training, leading to unfair outcomes.
- The paper discusses the trade-offs between fairness and accuracy, and proposes causal frameworks to address these issues.
Plain English Explanation
This research paper looks at how biases can sneak into and get worse in computer models used for making predictions and decisions. The researchers use causal reasoning to understand how these biases arise and grow.
Biases can creep in at various stages - when the data is collected, when the model is trained, and when the model is used to make decisions. For example, a hiring model trained on past hiring decisions that were biased against certain groups could end up amplifying that bias and making it even worse.
The paper discusses the difficult trade-offs between making models accurate and making them fair. Sometimes trying to correct for bias can actually make things less fair in other ways. The researchers propose using causal frameworks to better understand and address these challenges.
By taking a causal perspective, the paper aims to provide insights into how bias arises and how we can design models and decision processes to be more equitable. This is an important issue as these types of AI systems have a growing influence on people's lives.
Technical Explanation
The paper uses causal reasoning to analyze how biases can be introduced and amplified in predictive models and decision-making processes. The researchers develop causal frameworks to understand the trade-offs between fairness and accuracy.
Key elements of the technical approach include:
- Modeling the causal data generation process to identify sources of bias
- Analyzing how biases can be amplified through the model training and application stages
- Exploring the tensions between satisfying different fairness criteria, such as equalized odds
- Proposing causal frameworks to design and evaluate predictive systems that are more robust to bias
The paper provides both theoretical analysis and empirical results demonstrating the value of the causal perspective for understanding and mitigating bias amplification.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful causal analysis of bias amplification, but acknowledges some key limitations and areas for further research:
- The causal frameworks rely on strong assumptions about the underlying data generation process, which may not always hold in practice.
- The trade-offs between different fairness criteria are complex, and the paper doesn't fully resolve how to optimally balance them.
- The empirical evaluations are limited to certain datasets and model types, so the generalizability of the findings requires further investigation.
Additionally, one could argue that the causal perspective, while valuable, is not the only lens through which to study bias in AI systems. Other approaches, such as those focused on the multiplicity and arbitrariness of fairness definitions, could also provide important insights.
Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to the growing body of research on fairness in machine learning, but more work is needed to fully understand and address the complex challenges of bias amplification.
Conclusion
This paper takes a causal perspective to shed light on the phenomenon of bias amplification in predictive models and decision-making. By modeling the data generation process and training/application stages, the researchers uncover how biases can be introduced and exacerbated.
The key takeaway is that bias is not a simple issue to solve – there are fundamental trade-offs between fairness and accuracy that must be carefully navigated. The causal frameworks proposed in this paper offer a valuable tool for designing more robust and equitable AI systems.
As these technologies become more pervasive in consequential domains like healthcare, finance, and criminal justice, understanding and mitigating bias will only grow in importance. This paper represents an important step towards that goal.
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
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
🌐
When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness
Natasa Krco, Thibault Laugel, Vincent Grari, Jean-Michel Loubes, Marcin Detyniecki
0
0
Most research on fair machine learning has prioritized optimizing criteria such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Despite these efforts, there remains a limited understanding of how different bias mitigation strategies affect individual predictions and whether they introduce arbitrariness into the debiasing process. This paper addresses these gaps by exploring whether models that achieve comparable fairness and accuracy metrics impact the same individuals and mitigate bias in a consistent manner. We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions: Impact Size (how many people were affected), Change Direction (positive versus negative changes), Decision Rates (impact on models' acceptance rates), Affected Subpopulations (who was affected), and Neglected Subpopulations (where unfairness persists). This framework is intended to help practitioners understand the impacts of debiasing processes and make better-informed decisions regarding model selection. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
5/24/2024
❗
Unbiasing on the Fly: Explanation-Guided Human Oversight of Machine Learning System Decisions
Hussaini Mamman, Shuib Basri, Abdullateef Balogun, Abubakar Abdullahi Imam, Ganesh Kumar, Luiz Fernando Capretz
0
0
The widespread adoption of ML systems across critical domains like hiring, finance, and healthcare raises growing concerns about their potential for discriminatory decision-making based on protected attributes. While efforts to ensure fairness during development are crucial, they leave deployed ML systems vulnerable to potentially exhibiting discrimination during their operations. To address this gap, we propose a novel framework for on-the-fly tracking and correction of discrimination in deployed ML systems. Leveraging counterfactual explanations, the framework continuously monitors the predictions made by an ML system and flags discriminatory outcomes. When flagged, post-hoc explanations related to the original prediction and the counterfactual alternatives are presented to a human reviewer for real-time intervention. This human-in-the-loop approach empowers reviewers to accept or override the ML system decision, enabling fair and responsible ML operation under dynamic settings. While further work is needed for validation and refinement, this framework offers a promising avenue for mitigating discrimination and building trust in ML systems deployed in a wide range of domains.
6/27/2024
🎲
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