An official website of the United States government
Increased social media use has contributed to the greater prevalence of abusive, rude, and offensive textual comments. Machine learning models have been developed to detect toxic comments online, yet these models tend to show biases against users with marginalized or minority identities (e.g., females and African Americans). Established research in debiasing toxicity classifiers often (1) takes a static or batch approach, assuming that all information is available and then making a one-time decision; and (2) uses a generic strategy to mitigate different biases (e.g., gender and racial biases) that assumes the biases are independent of one another. However, in real scenarios, the input typically arrives as a sequence of comments/words over time instead of all at once. Thus, decisions based on partial information must be made while additional input is arriving. Moreover, social bias is complex by nature. Each type of bias is defined within its unique context, which, consistent with intersectionality theory within the social sciences, might be correlated with the contexts of other forms of bias. In this work, we consider debiasing toxicity detection as a sequential decision-making process where different biases can be interdependent. In particular, we study debiasing toxicity detection with two aims: (1) to examine whether different biases tend to correlate with each other; and (2) to investigate how to jointly mitigate these correlated biases in an interactive manner to minimize the total amount of bias. At the core of our approach is a framework built upon theories of sequential Markov Decision Processes that seeks to maximize the prediction accuracy and minimize the bias measures tailored to individual biases. Evaluations on two benchmark datasets empirically validate the hypothesis that biases tend to be correlated and corroborate the effectiveness of the proposed sequential debiasing strategy.
more »
« less
Certifying Robustness to Programmable Data Bias in Decision Trees
Datasets can be biased due to societal inequities, human biases, under-representation of minorities, etc. Our goal is to certify that models produced by a learning algorithm are pointwise-robust to dataset biases. This is a challenging problem: it entails learning models for a large, or even infinite, number of datasets, ensuring that they all produce the same prediction. We focus on decision-tree learning due to the interpretable nature of the models. Our approach allows programmatically specifying \emph{bias models} across a variety of dimensions (e.g., label-flipping or missing data), composing types of bias, and targeting bias towards a specific group. To certify robustness, we use a novel symbolic technique to evaluate a decision-tree learner on a large, or infinite, number of datasets, certifying that each and every dataset produces the same prediction for a specific test point. We evaluate our approach on datasets that are commonly used in the fairness literature, and demonstrate our approach's viability on a range of bias models.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1918211
- PAR ID:
- 10352195
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Applying machine learning to clinical outcome prediction is challenging due to imbalanced datasets and sensitive tasks that contain rare yet critical outcomes and where equitable treatment across diverse patient groups is essential. Despite attempts, biases in predictions persist, driven by disparities in representation and exacerbated by the scarcity of positive labels, perpetuating health inequities. This paper introduces , a synthetic data generation approach leveraging large language models, to address these issues. enhances algorithmic performance and reduces bias by creating realistic, anonymous synthetic patient data that improves representation and augments dataset patterns while preserving privacy. Through experiments on multiple datasets, we demonstrate that boosts mortality prediction performance across diverse subgroups, achieving up to a 21% improvement in F1 Score without requiring additional data or altering downstream training pipelines. Furthermore, consistently reduces subgroup performance gaps, as shown by universal improvements in performance and fairness metrics across four experimental setups.more » « less
-
Modern machine learning has achieved impressive prediction performance, but often sacrifices interpretability, a critical consideration in high-stakes domains such as medicine. In such settings, practitioners often use highly interpretable decision tree models, but these suffer from inductive bias against additive structure. To overcome this bias, we propose Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sums (FIGS), which generalizes the Classification and Regression Trees (CART) algorithm to simultaneously grow a flexible number of trees in summation. By combining logical rules with addition, FIGS adapts to additive structure while remaining highly interpretable. Experiments on real-world datasets show FIGS achieves state-of-the-art prediction performance. To demonstrate the usefulness of FIGS in high-stakes domains, we adapt FIGS to learn clinical decision instruments (CDIs), which are tools for guiding decision-making. Specifically, we introduce a variant of FIGS known as Group Probability-Weighted Tree Sums (G-FIGS) that accounts for heterogeneity in medical data. G-FIGS derives CDIs that reflect domain knowledge and enjoy improved specificity (by up to 20% over CART) without sacrificing sensitivity or interpretability. Theoretically, we prove that FIGS learns components of additive models, a property we refer to as disentanglement. Further, we show (under oracle conditions) that tree-sum models leverage disentanglement to generalize more efficiently than single tree models when fitted to additive regression functions. Finally, to avoid overfitting with an unconstrained number of splits, we develop Bagging-FIGS, an ensemble version of FIGS that borrows the variance reduction techniques of random forests. Bagging-FIGS performs competitively with random forests and XGBoost on real-world datasets.more » « less
-
Modern machine learning has achieved impressive prediction performance, but often sacrifices interpretability, a critical consideration in high-stakes domains such as medicine. In such settings, practitioners often use highly interpretable decision tree models, but these suffer from inductive bias against additive structure. To overcome this bias, we propose Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sums (FIGS), which generalizes the CART algorithm to simultaneously grow a flexible number of trees in summation. By combining logical rules with addition, FIGS is able to adapt to additive structure while remaining highly interpretable. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets show that FIGS achieves state-of-the-art prediction performance. To demonstrate the usefulness of FIGS in high-stakes domains, we adapt FIGS to learn clinical decision instruments (CDIs), which are tools for guiding clinical decision-making. Specifically, we introduce a variant of FIGS known as G-FIGS that accounts for the heterogeneity in medical data. G-FIGS derives CDIs that reflect domain knowledge and enjoy improved specificity (by up to 20% over CART) without sacrificing sensitivity or interpretability. To provide further insight into FIGS, we prove that FIGS learns components of additive models, a property we refer to as disentanglement. Further, we show (under oracle conditions) that unconstrained tree-sum models leverage disentanglement to generalize more efficiently than single decision tree models when fitted to additive regression functions. Finally, to avoid overfitting with an unconstrained number of splits, we develop Bagging-FIGS, an ensemble version of FIGS that borrows the variance reduction techniques of random forests. Bagging-FIGS enjoys competitive performance with random forests and XGBoost on real-world datasets.more » « less
-
With an increased focus on incorporating fairness in machine learning models, it becomes imperative not only to assess and mitigate bias at each stage of the machine learning pipeline but also to understand the downstream impacts of bias across stages. Here we consider a general, but realistic, scenario in which a predictive model is learned from (potentially biased) training data, and model predictions are assessed post-hoc for fairness by some auditing method. We provide a theoretical analysis of how a specific form of data bias, differential sampling bias, propagates from the data stage to the prediction stage. Unlike prior work, we evaluate the downstream impacts of data biases quantitatively rather than qualitatively and prove theoretical guarantees for detection. Under reasonable assumptions, we quantify how the amount of bias in the model predictions varies as a function of the amount of differential sampling bias in the data, and at what point this bias becomes provably detectable by the auditor. Through experiments on two criminal justice datasets– the well-known COMPAS dataset and historical data from NYPD’s stop and frisk policy– we demonstrate that the theoretical results hold in practice even when our assumptions are relaxed.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
