The Unfairness of $varepsilon$-Fairness
2405.09360
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Explores the limitations and potential unfairness of the commonly used ε-fairness metric in machine learning models
- Highlights the need for more nuanced fairness considerations beyond binary notions of fairness
- Proposes new fairness metrics and analysis techniques to better capture the complexities of fairness in multi-class classification settings
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the challenges in measuring fairness in machine learning models, particularly in multi-class classification tasks. The traditional ε-fairness metric, which aims to ensure that model predictions don't differ by more than ε between different groups, is shown to have significant limitations.
For example, a model with high overall accuracy could still exhibit unacceptable disparities in performance across different groups. The authors argue that more nuanced fairness metrics are needed to capture the complexities of real-world classification tasks, where the tradeoffs between accuracy, fairness, and other desirable properties may not be straightforward.
The paper introduces new fairness measures and analysis techniques to better quantify and reason about these tradeoffs. The goal is to provide practitioners with a more robust set of tools to evaluate and optimize for fairness in their machine learning systems, going beyond simplistic notions of ε-fairness.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by defining the standard multi-class classification setting, where a model is tasked with predicting one of K possible classes for each input. The authors then introduce the associated utilities, which capture the value or cost of different model outputs for each class and group.
The key insight is that the traditional ε-fairness metric, which bounds the difference in model performance (e.g., accuracy) between groups, can still allow for unacceptable disparities in how the model treats different groups. This is because ε-fairness does not directly account for the relative importance or utility of different classification outcomes.
To address this, the authors propose new fairness metrics that incorporate the associated utilities. These metrics aim to quantify the fairness-accuracy tradeoffs more holistically and provide a richer set of tools for evaluating and optimizing for fairness in multi-class classification tasks.
Critical Analysis
The paper highlights important limitations of the widely used ε-fairness metric and makes a compelling case for more nuanced fairness considerations in machine learning. The authors' proposed fairness measures and analysis techniques are a step in the right direction, but their practical implementation and the extent to which they address the challenges of unobserved confounding remain to be seen.
One potential concern is the reliance on predefined utility functions, which may not always capture the true value or cost of different classification outcomes in complex, real-world scenarios. There may be a need for further research on how to elicit and incorporate these utilities in a robust and ethical manner.
Additionally, the paper focuses primarily on multi-class classification tasks, but many machine learning applications involve more complex, structured prediction problems. Extending the proposed fairness framework to these settings could be an important direction for future work.
Conclusion
This paper offers a critical examination of the limitations of ε-fairness and proposes new fairness metrics that take into account the relative importance of different classification outcomes. By highlighting the need for more nuanced fairness considerations in machine learning, the authors contribute to the ongoing efforts to develop more robust and equitable AI systems. The insights and techniques presented in this work can help guide researchers and practitioners towards a deeper understanding of fairness challenges and more effective solutions.
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
📈
Metrizing Fairness
Yves Rychener, Bahar Taskesen, Daniel Kuhn
0
0
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.
6/12/2024
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
💬
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
📈
One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions
Jan Simson, Florian Pfisterer, Christoph Kern
0
0
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.
6/21/2024