fairness intervention
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > Tennessee > Davidson County > Nashville (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Bristol (0.04)
- Law (1.00)
- Education (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area (0.46)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Performance Analysis > Accuracy (0.46)
- South America > Brazil (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > Alaska (0.05)
- North America > Puerto Rico (0.05)
- Oceania > Northern Mariana Islands (0.04)
- (6 more...)
- Education > Educational Setting (0.95)
- Law (0.93)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.71)
- North America > United States > Minnesota > Hennepin County > Minneapolis (0.14)
- North America > Puerto Rico (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
Individual Arbitrariness and Group Fairness
Machine learning tasks may admit multiple competing models that achieve similar performance yet produce conflicting outputs for individual samples---a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. We demonstrate that fairness interventions in machine learning optimized solely for group fairness and accuracy can exacerbate predictive multiplicity.
Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions
Machine learning (ML) models can underperform on certain population groups due to choices made during model development and bias inherent in the data. We categorize sources of discrimination in the ML pipeline into two classes: aleatoric discrimination, which is inherent in the data distribution, and epistemic discrimination, which is due to decisions made during model development. We quantify aleatoric discrimination by determining the performance limits of a model under fairness constraints, assuming perfect knowledge of the data distribution. We demonstrate how to characterize aleatoric discrimination by applying Blackwell's results on comparing statistical experiments. We then quantify epistemic discrimination as the gap between a model's accuracy when fairness constraints are applied and the limit posed by aleatoric discrimination. We apply this approach to benchmark existing fairness interventions and investigate fairness risks in data with missing values. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art fairness interventions are effective at removing epistemic discrimination on standard (overused) tabular datasets. However, when data has missing values, there is still significant room for improvement in handling aleatoric discrimination.
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Data Science (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (0.67)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Performance Analysis > Accuracy (0.46)