Standardized Interpretable Fairness Measures for Continuous Risk Scores
0
📊
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Proposes a standardized version of fairness measures for continuous scores
- Measures are easily computable and well-suited for quantifying and interpreting group disparities
- Compares favorably to ROC-based fairness measures
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a new way to measure fairness in machine learning models that produce continuous scores, such as likelihood or probability estimates. The proposed fairness measures are easy to calculate and can be used to understand how much bias exists between different groups.
Compared to existing fairness measures based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the new measures are more explicit and can identify significant biases that ROC-based measures might miss. This makes them better for quantifying fairness and comparing bias across different machine learning models, datasets, or time points.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a set of fairness measures based on the Wasserstein distance, a way to quantify the difference between two probability distributions. These measures capture the strength of disparities between groups in a standardized way.
The authors show a mathematical link between the proposed measures and existing families of fairness metrics for continuous scores. They demonstrate that the new measures outperform ROC-based fairness metrics, as the latter can miss significant biases that the Wasserstein-based measures are able to detect.
The experiments in the paper validate the effectiveness of the proposed fairness measures across different scenarios.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a theoretically grounded and empirically validated approach to measuring fairness in machine learning models. The Wasserstein-based fairness measures address some key limitations of existing methods, making them a promising tool for quantifying and comparing biases.
However, the paper does not discuss potential issues around the interpretation or practical application of these fairness measures. Further research may be needed to understand how these measures behave in diverse real-world contexts and how they can be effectively integrated into machine learning development and deployment.
Conclusion
This paper presents a new framework for measuring fairness in machine learning models that produce continuous scores. The proposed standardized fairness measures are easily computable, have a clear interpretation, and outperform existing ROC-based approaches. These measures can be valuable tools for quantifying and comparing biases across different models, datasets, and applications, helping to advance the field of fair and ethical AI.
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
Standardized Interpretable Fairness Measures for Continuous Risk Scores
Ann-Kristin Becker, Oana Dumitrasc, Klaus Broelemann
We propose a standardized version of fairness measures for continuous scores with a reasonable interpretation based on the Wasserstein distance. Our measures are easily computable and well suited for quantifying and interpreting the strength of group disparities as well as for comparing biases across different models, datasets, or time points. We derive a link between the different families of existing fairness measures for scores and show that the proposed standardized fairness measures outperform ROC-based fairness measures because they are more explicit and can quantify significant biases that ROC-based fairness measures miss.
Read more8/30/2024
📈
0
Metrizing Fairness
Yves Rychener, Bahar Taskesen, Daniel Kuhn
We study supervised learning problems that have significant effects on individuals from two demographic groups, and we seek predictors that are fair with respect to a group fairness criterion such as statistical parity (SP). A predictor is SP-fair if the distributions of predictions within the two groups are close in Kolmogorov distance, and fairness is achieved by penalizing the dissimilarity of these two distributions in the objective function of the learning problem. In this paper, we identify conditions under which hard SP constraints are guaranteed to improve predictive accuracy. We also showcase conceptual and computational benefits of measuring unfairness with integral probability metrics (IPMs) other than the Kolmogorov distance. Conceptually, we show that the generator of any IPM can be interpreted as a family of utility functions and that unfairness with respect to this IPM arises if individuals in the two demographic groups have diverging expected utilities. We also prove that the unfairness-regularized prediction loss admits unbiased gradient estimators, which are constructed from random mini-batches of training samples, if unfairness is measured by the squared $mathcal L^2$-distance or by a squared maximum mean discrepancy. In this case, the fair learning problem is susceptible to efficient stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithms. Numerical experiments on synthetic and real data show that these SGD algorithms outperform state-of-the-art methods for fair learning in that they achieve superior accuracy-unfairness trade-offs -- sometimes orders of magnitude faster.
Read more6/12/2024
0
Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures
Selim Kuzucu, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes, Sinan Kalkan
Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been addressed by the ML community with various measures of fairness that depend on the prediction outcomes of the ML models, either at the group level or the individual level. These fairness measures are limited in that they utilize point predictions, neglecting their variances, or uncertainties, making them susceptible to noise, missingness and shifts in data. In this paper, we first show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction uncertainties. Then, we introduce new fairness measures based on different types of uncertainties, namely, aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. We demonstrate on many datasets that (i) our uncertainty-based measures are complementary to existing measures of fairness, and (ii) they provide more insights about the underlying issues leading to bias.
Read more8/30/2024
💬
0
Fairness and Unfairness in Binary and Multiclass Classification: Quantifying, Calculating, and Bounding
Sivan Sabato, Eran Treister, Elad Yom-Tov
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.
Read more4/9/2024