Online platforms mediate access to opportunity: relevance-based rankings create and constrain options by allocating exposure to job openings and job candidates in hiring platforms, or sellers in a marketplace. In order to do so responsibly, these socially consequential systems employ various fairness measures and interventions, many of which seek to allocate exposure based on worthiness. Because these constructs are typically not directly observable, platforms must instead resort to using proxy scores such as relevance and infer them from behavioral signals such as searcher clicks. Yet, it remains an open question whether relevance fulfills its role as such a worthiness score in high-stakes fair rankings. In this paper, we combine perspectives and tools from the social sciences, information retrieval, and fairness in machine learning to derive a set of desired criteria that relevance scores should satisfy in order to meaningfully guide fairness interventions. We then empirically show that not all of these criteria are met in a case study of relevance inferred from biased user click data. We assess the impact of these violations on the estimated system fairness and analyze whether existing fairness interventions may mitigate the identified issues. Our analyses and results surface the pressing need for new approaches to relevance collection and generation that are suitable for use in fair ranking.
相關內容
We are interested in creating statistical methods to provide informative summaries of random fields through the geometry of their excursion sets. To this end, we introduce an estimator for the length of the perimeter of excursion sets of random fields on $\mathbb{R}^2$ observed over regular square tilings. The proposed estimator acts on the empirically accessible binary digital images of the excursion regions and computes the length of a piecewise linear approximation of the excursion boundary. The estimator is shown to be consistent as the pixel size decreases, without the need of any normalization constant, and with neither assumption of Gaussianity nor isotropy imposed on the underlying random field. In this general framework, even when the domain grows to cover $\mathbb{R}^2$, the estimation error is shown to be of smaller order than the side length of the domain. For affine, strongly mixing random fields, this translates to a multivariate Central Limit Theorem for our estimator when multiple levels are considered simultaneously. Finally, we conduct several numerical studies to investigate statistical properties of the proposed estimator in the finite-sample data setting.
In a well-calibrated risk prediction model, the average predicted probability is close to the true event rate for any given subgroup. Such models are reliable across heterogeneous populations and satisfy strong notions of algorithmic fairness. However, the task of auditing a model for strong calibration is well-known to be difficult -- particularly for machine learning (ML) algorithms -- due to the sheer number of potential subgroups. As such, common practice is to only assess calibration with respect to a few predefined subgroups. Recent developments in goodness-of-fit testing offer potential solutions but are not designed for settings with weak signal or where the poorly calibrated subgroup is small, as they either overly subdivide the data or fail to divide the data at all. We introduce a new testing procedure based on the following insight: if we can reorder observations by their expected residuals, there should be a change in the association between the predicted and observed residuals along this sequence if a poorly calibrated subgroup exists. This lets us reframe the problem of calibration testing into one of changepoint detection, for which powerful methods already exist. We begin with introducing a sample-splitting procedure where a portion of the data is used to train a suite of candidate models for predicting the residual, and the remaining data are used to perform a score-based cumulative sum (CUSUM) test. To further improve power, we then extend this adaptive CUSUM test to incorporate cross-validation, while maintaining Type I error control under minimal assumptions. Compared to existing methods, the proposed procedure consistently achieved higher power in simulation studies and more than doubled the power when auditing a mortality risk prediction model.
We provide a unified operational framework for the study of causality, non-locality and contextuality, in a fully device-independent and theory-independent setting. We define causaltopes, our chosen portmanteau of "causal polytopes", for arbitrary spaces of input histories and arbitrary choices of input contexts. We show that causaltopes are obtained by slicing simpler polytopes of conditional probability distributions with a set of causality equations, which we fully characterise. We provide efficient linear programs to compute the maximal component of an empirical model supported by any given sub-causaltope, as well as the associated causal fraction. We introduce a notion of causal separability relative to arbitrary causal constraints. We provide efficient linear programs to compute the maximal causally separable component of an empirical model, and hence its causally separable fraction, as the component jointly supported by certain sub-causaltopes. We study causal fractions and causal separability for several novel examples, including a selection of quantum switches with entangled or contextual control. In the process, we demonstrate the existence of "causal contextuality", a phenomenon where causal inseparability is clearly correlated to, or even directly implied by, non-locality and contextuality.
Confounding is a significant obstacle to unbiased estimation of causal effects from observational data. For settings with high-dimensional covariates -- such as text data, genomics, or the behavioral social sciences -- researchers have proposed methods to adjust for confounding by adapting machine learning methods to the goal of causal estimation. However, empirical evaluation of these adjustment methods has been challenging and limited. In this work, we build on a promising empirical evaluation strategy that simplifies evaluation design and uses real data: subsampling randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to create confounded observational datasets while using the average causal effects from the RCTs as ground-truth. We contribute a new sampling algorithm, which we call RCT rejection sampling, and provide theoretical guarantees that causal identification holds in the observational data to allow for valid comparisons to the ground-truth RCT. Using synthetic data, we show our algorithm indeed results in low bias when oracle estimators are evaluated on the confounded samples, which is not always the case for a previously proposed algorithm. In addition to this identification result, we highlight several finite data considerations for evaluation designers who plan to use RCT rejection sampling on their own datasets. As a proof of concept, we implement an example evaluation pipeline and walk through these finite data considerations with a novel, real-world RCT -- which we release publicly -- consisting of approximately 70k observations and text data as high-dimensional covariates. Together, these contributions build towards a broader agenda of improved empirical evaluation for causal estimation.
Machine learning methods have significantly improved in their predictive capabilities, but at the same time they are becoming more complex and less transparent. As a result, explainers are often relied on to provide interpretability to these black-box prediction models. As crucial diagnostics tools, it is important that these explainers themselves are robust. In this paper we focus on one particular aspect of robustness, namely that an explainer should give similar explanations for similar data inputs. We formalize this notion by introducing and defining explainer astuteness, analogous to astuteness of prediction functions. Our formalism allows us to connect explainer robustness to the predictor's probabilistic Lipschitzness, which captures the probability of local smoothness of a function. We provide lower bound guarantees on the astuteness of a variety of explainers (e.g., SHAP, RISE, CXPlain) given the Lipschitzness of the prediction function. These theoretical results imply that locally smooth prediction functions lend themselves to locally robust explanations. We evaluate these results empirically on simulated as well as real datasets.
Algorithmic fairness has been a serious concern and received lots of interest in machine learning community. In this paper, we focus on the bipartite ranking scenario, where the instances come from either the positive or negative class and the goal is to learn a ranking function that ranks positive instances higher than negative ones. While there could be a trade-off between fairness and performance, we propose a model agnostic post-processing framework xOrder for achieving fairness in bipartite ranking and maintaining the algorithm classification performance. In particular, we optimize a weighted sum of the utility as identifying an optimal warping path across different protected groups and solve it through a dynamic programming process. xOrder is compatible with various classification models and ranking fairness metrics, including supervised and unsupervised fairness metrics. In addition to binary groups, xOrder can be applied to multiple protected groups. We evaluate our proposed algorithm on four benchmark data sets and two real-world patient electronic health record repositories. xOrder consistently achieves a better balance between the algorithm utility and ranking fairness on a variety of datasets with different metrics. From the visualization of the calibrated ranking scores, xOrder mitigates the score distribution shifts of different groups compared with baselines. Moreover, additional analytical results verify that xOrder achieves a robust performance when faced with fewer samples and a bigger difference between training and testing ranking score distributions.
We consider the vulnerability of fairness-constrained learning to small amounts of malicious noise in the training data. Konstantinov and Lampert (2021) initiated the study of this question and presented negative results showing there exist data distributions where for several fairness constraints, any proper learner will exhibit high vulnerability when group sizes are imbalanced. Here, we present a more optimistic view, showing that if we allow randomized classifiers, then the landscape is much more nuanced. For example, for Demographic Parity we show we can incur only a $\Theta(\alpha)$ loss in accuracy, where $\alpha$ is the malicious noise rate, matching the best possible even without fairness constraints. For Equal Opportunity, we show we can incur an $O(\sqrt{\alpha})$ loss, and give a matching $\Omega(\sqrt{\alpha})$lower bound. In contrast, Konstantinov and Lampert (2021) showed for proper learners the loss in accuracy for both notions is $\Omega(1)$. The key technical novelty of our work is how randomization can bypass simple "tricks" an adversary can use to amplify his power. We also consider additional fairness notions including Equalized Odds and Calibration. For these fairness notions, the excess accuracy clusters into three natural regimes $O(\alpha)$,$O(\sqrt{\alpha})$ and $O(1)$. These results provide a more fine-grained view of the sensitivity of fairness-constrained learning to adversarial noise in training data.
The growing prominence of social media in public discourse has led to a greater scrutiny of the quality of online information and the role it plays in amplifying political polarization. However, studies of polarization on social media platforms like Twitter have been hampered by the difficulty of collecting data about the social graph, specifically follow links that shape the echo chambers users join as well as what they see in their timelines. As a proxy of the follower graph, researchers use retweets, although it is not clear how this choice affects analysis. Using a sample of the Twitter follower graph and the tweets posted by users within it, we reconstruct the retweet graph and quantify its impact on the measures of echo chambers and exposure. While we find that echo chambers exist in both graphs, they are more pronounced in the retweet graph. We compare the information users see via their follower and retweet networks to show that retweeted accounts share systematically more polarized content. This bias cannot be explained by the activity or polarization within users' own follower graph neighborhoods but by the increased attention they pay to accounts that are ideologically aligned with their own views. Our results suggest that studies relying on the retweet graphs overestimate the echo chamber effects and exposure to polarized information.
As one of the most pervasive applications of machine learning, recommender systems are playing an important role on assisting human decision making. The satisfaction of users and the interests of platforms are closely related to the quality of the generated recommendation results. However, as a highly data-driven system, recommender system could be affected by data or algorithmic bias and thus generate unfair results, which could weaken the reliance of the systems. As a result, it is crucial to address the potential unfairness problems in recommendation settings. Recently, there has been growing attention on fairness considerations in recommender systems with more and more literature on approaches to promote fairness in recommendation. However, the studies are rather fragmented and lack a systematic organization, thus making it difficult to penetrate for new researchers to the domain. This motivates us to provide a systematic survey of existing works on fairness in recommendation. This survey focuses on the foundations for fairness in recommendation literature. It first presents a brief introduction about fairness in basic machine learning tasks such as classification and ranking in order to provide a general overview of fairness research, as well as introduce the more complex situations and challenges that need to be considered when studying fairness in recommender systems. After that, the survey will introduce fairness in recommendation with a focus on the taxonomies of current fairness definitions, the typical techniques for improving fairness, as well as the datasets for fairness studies in recommendation. The survey also talks about the challenges and opportunities in fairness research with the hope of promoting the fair recommendation research area and beyond.
Since the 1950s, machine translation (MT) has become one of the important tasks of AI and development, and has experienced several different periods and stages of development, including rule-based methods, statistical methods, and recently proposed neural network-based learning methods. Accompanying these staged leaps is the evaluation research and development of MT, especially the important role of evaluation methods in statistical translation and neural translation research. The evaluation task of MT is not only to evaluate the quality of machine translation, but also to give timely feedback to machine translation researchers on the problems existing in machine translation itself, how to improve and how to optimise. In some practical application fields, such as in the absence of reference translations, the quality estimation of machine translation plays an important role as an indicator to reveal the credibility of automatically translated target languages. This report mainly includes the following contents: a brief history of machine translation evaluation (MTE), the classification of research methods on MTE, and the the cutting-edge progress, including human evaluation, automatic evaluation, and evaluation of evaluation methods (meta-evaluation). Manual evaluation and automatic evaluation include reference-translation based and reference-translation independent participation; automatic evaluation methods include traditional n-gram string matching, models applying syntax and semantics, and deep learning models; evaluation of evaluation methods includes estimating the credibility of human evaluations, the reliability of the automatic evaluation, the reliability of the test set, etc. Advances in cutting-edge evaluation methods include task-based evaluation, using pre-trained language models based on big data, and lightweight optimisation models using distillation techniques.
小貼士
登錄享
相關主題
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191