One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions
2308.16681
0
0
📈
Abstract
A vast number of systems across the world use algorithmic decision making (ADM) to (partially) automate decisions that have previously been made by humans. The downstream effects of ADM systems critically depend on the decisions made during a systems' design, implementation, and evaluation, as biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced along the modeling pipeline. Many of these decisions are made implicitly, without knowing exactly how they will influence the final system. To study this issue, we draw on insights from the field of psychology and introduce the method of multiverse analysis for algorithmic fairness. In our proposed method, we turn implicit decisions during design and evaluation into explicit ones and demonstrate their fairness implications. By combining decisions, we create a grid of all possible universes of decision combinations. For each of these universes, we compute metrics of fairness and performance. Using the resulting dataset, one can investigate the variability and robustness of fairness scores and see how and which decisions impact fairness. We demonstrate how multiverse analyses can be used to better understand fairness implications of design and evaluation decisions using an exemplary case study of predicting public health care coverage for vulnerable populations. Our results highlight how decisions regarding the evaluation of a system can lead to vastly different fairness metrics for the same model. This is problematic, as a nefarious actor could optimise or hack a fairness metric to portray a discriminating model as fair merely by changing how it is evaluated. We illustrate how a multiverse analysis can help to address this issue.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems are being used to automate decisions previously made by humans
- The fairness of these systems depends on decisions made during design, implementation, and evaluation
- Biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced at different stages of the modeling pipeline
- Many of these decisions are made implicitly, without understanding their impact on the final system
Plain English Explanation
Algorithms are increasingly being used to make decisions that used to be made by people. For example, algorithms might be used to decide who gets approved for a loan or what content is shown to users on social media. The fairness of these algorithmic decisions depends a lot on the choices made when designing, implementing, and evaluating the algorithms.
If the data used to train the algorithms has biases, those biases can get baked into the final system in ways that are hard to predict. And the specific choices made about how to measure fairness, or how to balance fairness with other goals like accuracy, can have a big impact on the final outcomes.
The problem is that many of these crucial decisions are made without a clear understanding of how they will affect the fairness of the system. Researchers want to find a way to make these decisions more explicit, so we can better understand their implications.
Technical Explanation
The researchers propose using a method called "multiverse analysis" to study the fairness implications of design and evaluation decisions for ADM systems. The key idea is to take all the implicit decisions made during the process and turn them into explicit choices.
For example, when evaluating the fairness of a system, there are many different ways to measure fairness, like demographic parity or equal opportunity. The researchers create a "multiverse" of all possible combinations of these evaluation choices, and then compute fairness and performance metrics for each universe.
This allows them to see how sensitive the fairness results are to the specific evaluation choices made. It also helps uncover situations where a system could be optimized to look fair on one metric, even if it is still discriminating in other ways.
The researchers demonstrate this multiverse approach using a case study on predicting public healthcare coverage for vulnerable populations. Their results show that the fairness scores can vary dramatically depending on the evaluation choices, highlighting the importance of making these decisions explicit.
Critical Analysis
The multiverse analysis proposed in this paper is a clever way to study the complex, interacting factors that influence the fairness of ADM systems. By systematically exploring the space of possible decisions, the researchers are able to uncover hidden sensitivities and vulnerabilities that might otherwise be missed.
One limitation is that the approach relies on being able to define all the relevant decisions upfront. In practice, there may be many implicit choices made throughout the development process that are hard to capture. Additionally, the computational cost of exploring a full multiverse could be prohibitive for large, complex systems.
Another concern is that nefarious actors could potentially game the system by strategically choosing which fairness metrics to optimize for, rather than truly addressing the underlying biases. The researchers acknowledge this risk, but more work may be needed to develop robust safeguards.
Overall, this paper makes an important contribution by shining a light on the often-overlooked decisions that shape the fairness of ADM systems. The multiverse analysis technique offers a promising path forward, but will likely need to be combined with other approaches to fully tackle the complexities of algorithmic fairness.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a novel method called multiverse analysis to better understand the fairness implications of the many decisions involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems. By systematically exploring the space of possible choices, the researchers are able to uncover how sensitive fairness outcomes can be to seemingly minor decisions.
The key insight is that many of these crucial decisions are often made implicitly, without a clear understanding of their downstream effects. The multiverse approach makes these choices explicit, allowing for a more rigorous analysis of their fairness impacts.
While the multiverse technique has some limitations, it represents an important step forward in the quest to build fair and accountable ADM systems. As these algorithms become increasingly pervasive in high-stakes domains like healthcare and criminal justice, tools like this will be essential for ensuring they are used responsibly and equitably.
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
🌐
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
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
🏷️
Fairness and Bias in Multimodal AI: A Survey
Tosin Adewumi, Lama Alkhaled, Namrata Gurung, Goya van Boven, Irene Pagliai
0
0
The importance of addressing fairness and bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be over-emphasized. Mainstream media has been awashed with news of incidents around stereotypes and bias in many of these systems in recent years. In this survey, we fill a gap with regards to the minimal study of fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) compared to Large Language Models (LLMs), providing 50 examples of datasets and models along with the challenges affecting them; we identify a new category of quantifying bias (preuse), in addition to the two well-known ones in the literature: intrinsic and extrinsic; we critically discuss the various ways researchers are addressing these challenges. Our method involved two slightly different search queries on Google Scholar, which revealed that 33,400 and 538,000 links are the results for the terms Fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models and Fairness and bias in Large Language Models, respectively. We believe this work contributes to filling this gap and providing insight to researchers and other stakeholders on ways to address the challenge of fairness and bias in multimodal A!.
6/28/2024
🛸
What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds
Ludwig Bothmann, Kristina Peters, Bernd Bischl
0
0
A growing body of literature in fairness-aware machine learning (fairML) aims to mitigate machine learning (ML)-related unfairness in automated decision-making (ADM) by defining metrics that measure fairness of an ML model and by proposing methods to ensure that trained ML models achieve low scores on these metrics. However, the underlying concept of fairness, i.e., the question of what fairness is, is rarely discussed, leaving a significant gap between centuries of philosophical discussion and the recent adoption of the concept in the ML community. In this work, we try to bridge this gap by formalizing a consistent concept of fairness and by translating the philosophical considerations into a formal framework for the training and evaluation of ML models in ADM systems. We argue that fairness problems can arise even without the presence of protected attributes (PAs), and point out that fairness and predictive performance are not irreconcilable opposites, but that the latter is necessary to achieve the former. Furthermore, we argue why and how causal considerations are necessary when assessing fairness in the presence of PAs by proposing a fictitious, normatively desired (FiND) world in which PAs have no causal effects. In practice, this FiND world must be approximated by a warped world in which the causal effects of the PAs are removed from the real-world data. Finally, we achieve greater linguistic clarity in the discussion of fairML. We outline algorithms for practical applications and present illustrative experiments on COMPAS data.
6/4/2024