More Like this

1. The statistical fairness field guide: perspectives from social and formal sciences

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00183-3  

   Carey, Alycia N. ; Wu, Xintao ( June 2022 , AI and Ethics)

   Over the past several years, a multitude of methods to measure the fairness of a machine learning model have been proposed. However, despite the growing number of publications and implementations, there is still a critical lack of literature that explains the interplay of fair machine learning with the social sciences of philosophy, sociology, and law. We hope to remedy this issue by accumulating and expounding upon the thoughts and discussions of fair machine learning produced by both social and formal (i.e., machine learning and statistics) sciences in this field guide. Specifically, in addition to giving the mathematical and algorithmic backgrounds of several popular statistics-based fair machine learning metrics used in fair machine learning, we explain the underlying philosophical and legal thoughts that support them. Furthermore, we explore several criticisms of the current approaches to fair machine learning from sociological, philosophical, and legal viewpoints. It is our hope that this field guide helps machine learning practitioners identify and remediate cases where algorithms violate human rights and values.

    

   more » « less
2. PC-Fairness: A Unified Framework for Measuring Causality-based Fairness

   Wu, Yongkai ; Zhang, Lu ; Wu, Xintao ; Tong, Hanghang ( January 2019 , Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019)

   A recent trend of fair machine learning is to define fairness as causality-based notions which concern the causal connection between protected attributes and decisions. However, one common challenge of all causality-based fairness notions is identifiability, i.e., whether they can be uniquely measured from observational data, which is a critical barrier to applying these notions to real-world situations. In this paper, we develop a framework for measuring different causality-based fairness. We propose a unified definition that covers most of previous causality-based fairness notions, namely the path-specific counterfactual fairness (PC fairness). Based on that, we propose a general method in the form of a constrained optimization problem for bounding the path-specific counterfactual fairness under all unidentifiable situations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets show the correctness and effectiveness of our method. 

   more » « less
3. Fairness Under Composition

   Dwork, C ; Ilvento, C ( January 2019 , 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2019))

   Blum, A (Ed.)

   Algorithmic fairness, and in particular the fairness of scoring and classification algorithms, has become a topic of increasing social concern and has recently witnessed an explosion of research in theoretical computer science, machine learning, statistics, the social sciences, and law. Much of the literature considers the case of a single classifier (or scoring function) used once, in isolation. In this work, we initiate the study of the fairness properties of systems composed of algorithms that are fair in isolation; that is, we study fairness under composition. We identify pitfalls of naïve composition and give general constructions for fair composition, demonstrating both that classifiers that are fair in isolation do not necessarily compose into fair systems and also that seemingly unfair components may be carefully combined to construct fair systems. We focus primarily on the individual fairness setting proposed in [Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, Zemel, 2011], but also extend our results to a large class of group fairness definitions popular in the recent literature, exhibiting several cases in which group fairness definitions give misleading signals under composition. 

   more » « less
4. Fair Classification with Instance-dependent Label Noise

   Wu, Songhua ; Gong, Mingming ; Han, Bo ; Liu, Yang ; Liu, Tongliang ( January 2022 , First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning)

   With the widespread use of machine learning systems in our daily lives, it is important to consider fairness as a basic requirement when designing these systems, especially when the systems make life-changing decisions, e.g., \textit{COMPAS} algorithm helps judges decide whether to release an offender. For another thing, due to the cheap but imperfect data collection methods, such as crowdsourcing and web crawling, label noise is ubiquitous, which unfortunately makes fairness-aware algorithms even more prejudiced than fairness-unaware ones, and thereby harmful. To tackle these problems, we provide general frameworks for learning fair classifiers with \textit{instance-dependent label noise}. For statistical fairness notions, we rewrite the classification risk and the fairness metric in terms of noisy data and thereby build robust classifiers. For the causality-based fairness notion, we exploit the internal causal structure of data to model the label noise and \textit{counterfactual fairness} simultaneously. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods on real-world datasets with controllable synthetic label noise. 

   more » « less
5. The measure and mismeasure of fairness

   Corbett-Davies, Sam ; Gaebler, Johann D. ; Nilforoshan, Hamed ; Shroff, Ravi ; Goel, Sharad ( August 2023 , Journal of machine learning research)

   Weinberger, Kilian (Ed.)

   The field of fair machine learning aims to ensure that decisions guided by algorithms are equitable. Over the last decade, several formal, mathematical definitions of fairness have gained prominence. Here we first assemble and categorize these definitions into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions typically result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies. For example, in the case of college admissions, adhering to popular formal conceptions of fairness would simultaneously result in lower student-body diversity and a less academically prepared class, relative to what one could achieve by explicitly tailoring admissions policies to achieve desired outcomes. In this sense, requiring that these fairness definitions hold can, perversely, harm the very groups they were designed to protect. In contrast to axiomatic notions of fairness, we argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences, akin to the equitable design of policy. We conclude by listing several open challenges in fair machine learning and offering strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals. 

   more » « less