Despite a surge of recent advances in promoting machine Learning (ML) fairness, the existing mainstream approaches mostly require retraining or finetuning the entire weights of the neural network to meet the fairness criteria. However, this is often infeasible in practice for those large-scale trained models due to large computational and storage costs, low data efficiency, and model privacy issues. In this paper, we propose a new generic fairness learning paradigm, called FairReprogram, which incorporates the model reprogramming technique. Specifically, FairReprogram considers the case where models can not be changed and appends to the input a set of perturbations, called the fairness trigger, which is tuned towards the fairness criteria under a min-max formulation. We further introduce an information-theoretic framework that explains why and under what conditions fairness goals can be achieved using the fairness trigger. We show both theoretically and empirically that the fairness trigger can effectively obscure demographic biases in the output prediction of fixed ML models by providing false demographic information that hinders the model from utilizing the correct demographic information to make the prediction. Extensive experiments on both NLP and CV datasets demonstrate that our method can achieve better fairness improvements than retraining-based methods with far less data dependency under two widely-used fairness criteria. Codes are available at //github.com/UCSB-NLP-Chang/Fairness-Reprogramming.git.
相關內容
A growing literature on human-AI decision-making investigates strategies for combining human judgment with statistical models to improve decision-making. Research in this area often evaluates proposed improvements to models, interfaces, or workflows by demonstrating improved predictive performance on "ground truth" labels. However, this practice overlooks a key difference between human judgments and model predictions. Whereas humans reason about broader phenomena of interest in a decision - including latent constructs that are not directly observable, such as disease status, the "toxicity" of online comments, or future "job performance" - predictive models target proxy labels that are readily available in existing datasets. Predictive models' reliance on simplistic proxies makes them vulnerable to various sources of statistical bias. In this paper, we identify five sources of target variable bias that can impact the validity of proxy labels in human-AI decision-making tasks. We develop a causal framework to disentangle the relationship between each bias and clarify which are of concern in specific human-AI decision-making tasks. We demonstrate how our framework can be used to articulate implicit assumptions made in prior modeling work, and we recommend evaluation strategies for verifying whether these assumptions hold in practice. We then leverage our framework to re-examine the designs of prior human subjects experiments that investigate human-AI decision-making, finding that only a small fraction of studies examine factors related to target variable bias. We conclude by discussing opportunities to better address target variable bias in future research.
The ``impossibility theorem'' -- which is considered foundational in algorithmic fairness literature -- asserts that there must be trade-offs between common notions of fairness and performance when fitting statistical models, except in two special cases: when the prevalence of the outcome being predicted is equal across groups, or when a perfectly accurate predictor is used. However, theory does not always translate to practice. In this work, we challenge the implications of the impossibility theorem in practical settings. First, we show analytically that, by slightly relaxing the impossibility theorem (to accommodate a \textit{practitioner's} perspective of fairness), it becomes possible to identify a large set of models that satisfy seemingly incompatible fairness constraints. Second, we demonstrate the existence of these models through extensive experiments on five real-world datasets. We conclude by offering tools and guidance for practitioners to understand when -- and to what degree -- fairness along multiple criteria can be achieved. For example, if one allows only a small margin-of-error between metrics, there exists a large set of models simultaneously satisfying \emph{False Negative Rate Parity}, \emph{False Positive Rate Parity}, and \emph{Positive Predictive Value Parity}, even when there is a moderate prevalence difference between groups. This work has an important implication for the community: achieving fairness along multiple metrics for multiple groups (and their intersections) is much more possible than was previously believed.
Collaborative filtering based recommendation learns users' preferences from all users' historical behavior data, and has been popular to facilitate decision making. R Recently, the fairness issue of recommendation has become more and more essential. A recommender system is considered unfair when it does not perform equally well for different user groups according to users' sensitive attributes~(e.g., gender, race). Plenty of methods have been proposed to alleviate unfairness by optimizing a predefined fairness goal or changing the distribution of unbalanced training data. However, they either suffered from the specific fairness optimization metrics or relied on redesigning the current recommendation architecture. In this paper, we study how to improve recommendation fairness from the data augmentation perspective. The recommendation model amplifies the inherent unfairness of imbalanced training data. We augment imbalanced training data towards balanced data distribution to improve fairness. The proposed framework is generally applicable to any embedding-based recommendation, and does not need to pre-define a fairness metric. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets clearly demonstrate the superiority of our proposed framework. We publish the source code at //github.com/newlei/FDA.
With the remarkable increase in the number of scientific entities such as publications, researchers, and scientific topics, and the associated information overload in science, academic recommender systems have become increasingly important for millions of researchers and science enthusiasts. However, it is often overlooked that these systems are subject to various biases. In this article, we first break down the biases of academic recommender systems and characterize them according to their impact and prevalence. In doing so, we distinguish between biases originally caused by humans and biases induced by the recommender system. Second, we provide an overview of methods that have been used to mitigate these biases in the scholarly domain. Based on this, third, we present a framework that can be used by researchers and developers to mitigate biases in scholarly recommender systems and to evaluate recommender systems fairly. Finally, we discuss open challenges and possible research directions related to scholarly biases.
In this paper, we consider a theoretical model for injecting data bias, namely, under-representation and label bias (Blum & Stangl, 2019). We theoretically and empirically study its effect on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Theoretically, we prove that the Bayes optimal group-aware fair classifier on the original data distribution can be recovered by simply minimizing a carefully chosen reweighed loss on the bias-injected distribution. Through extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets (e.g., Adult, German Credit, Bank Marketing, COMPAS), we empirically audit pre-, in-, and post-processing fair classifiers from standard fairness toolkits for their fairness and accuracy by injecting varying amounts of under-representation and label bias in their training data (but not the test data). Our main observations are: (1) The fairness and accuracy of many standard fair classifiers degrade severely as the bias injected in their training data increases, (2) A simple logistic regression model trained on the right data can often outperform, in both accuracy and fairness, most fair classifiers trained on biased training data, and (3) A few, simple fairness techniques (e.g., reweighing, exponentiated gradients) seem to offer stable accuracy and fairness guarantees even when their training data is injected with under-representation and label bias. Our experiments also show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments
Making fair decisions is crucial to ethically implementing machine learning algorithms in social settings. In this work, we consider the celebrated definition of counterfactual fairness [Kusner et al., NeurIPS, 2017]. We begin by showing that an algorithm which satisfies counterfactual fairness also satisfies demographic parity, a far simpler fairness constraint. Similarly, we show that all algorithms satisfying demographic parity can be trivially modified to satisfy counterfactual fairness. Together, our results indicate that counterfactual fairness is basically equivalent to demographic parity, which has important implications for the growing body of work on counterfactual fairness. We then validate our theoretical findings empirically, analyzing three existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness against three simple benchmarks. We find that two simple benchmark algorithms outperform all three existing algorithms -- in terms of fairness, accuracy, and efficiency -- on several data sets. Our analysis leads us to formalize a concrete fairness goal: to preserve the order of individuals within protected groups. We believe transparency around the ordering of individuals within protected groups makes fair algorithms more trustworthy. By design, the two simple benchmark algorithms satisfy this goal while the existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness do not.
Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. However current progress is hampered by a plurality of definitions of bias, means of quantification, and oftentimes vague relation between debiasing algorithms and theoretical measures of bias. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning, with two key contributions: (1) making clear inter-relations among the current gamut of methods, and their relation to fairness theory; and (2) addressing the practical problem of model selection, which involves a trade-off between fairness and accuracy and has led to systemic issues in fairness research. Putting them together, we make several recommendations to help shape future work.
The prevailing graph neural network models have achieved significant progress in graph representation learning. However, in this paper, we uncover an ever-overlooked phenomenon: the pre-trained graph representation learning model tested with full graphs underperforms the model tested with well-pruned graphs. This observation reveals that there exist confounders in graphs, which may interfere with the model learning semantic information, and current graph representation learning methods have not eliminated their influence. To tackle this issue, we propose Robust Causal Graph Representation Learning (RCGRL) to learn robust graph representations against confounding effects. RCGRL introduces an active approach to generate instrumental variables under unconditional moment restrictions, which empowers the graph representation learning model to eliminate confounders, thereby capturing discriminative information that is causally related to downstream predictions. We offer theorems and proofs to guarantee the theoretical effectiveness of the proposed approach. Empirically, we conduct extensive experiments on a synthetic dataset and multiple benchmark datasets. The results demonstrate that compared with state-of-the-art methods, RCGRL achieves better prediction performance and generalization ability.
The TREC Fair Ranking Track aims to provide a platform for participants to develop and evaluate novel retrieval algorithms that can provide a fair exposure to a mixture of demographics or attributes, such as ethnicity, that are represented by relevant documents in response to a search query. For example, particular demographics or attributes can be represented by the documents topical content or authors. The 2022 Fair Ranking Track adopted a resource allocation task. The task focused on supporting Wikipedia editors who are looking to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of topics under the purview of a WikiProject. WikiProject coordinators and/or Wikipedia editors search for Wikipedia documents that are in need of editing to improve the quality of the article. The 2022 Fair Ranking track aimed to ensure that documents that are about, or somehow represent, certain protected characteristics receive a fair exposure to the Wikipedia editors, so that the documents have an fair opportunity of being improved and, therefore, be well-represented in Wikipedia. The under-representation of particular protected characteristics in Wikipedia can result in systematic biases that can have a negative human, social, and economic impact, particularly for disadvantaged or protected societal groups.
Proponents of explainable AI have often argued that it constitutes an essential path towards algorithmic fairness. Prior works examining these claims have primarily evaluated explanations based on their effects on humans' perceptions, but there is scant research on the relationship between explanations and distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to examine the relationship between feature-based explanations and distributive fairness, mediated by human perceptions and reliance on AI recommendations. Our findings show that explanations influence fairness perceptions, which, in turn, relate to humans' tendency to adhere to AI recommendations. However, our findings suggest that such explanations do not enable humans to discern correct and wrong AI recommendations. Instead, we show that they may affect reliance irrespective of the correctness of AI recommendations. Depending on which features an explanation highlights, this can foster or hinder distributive fairness: when explanations highlight features that are task-irrelevant and evidently associated with the sensitive attribute, this prompts overrides that counter stereotype-aligned AI recommendations. Meanwhile, if explanations appear task-relevant, this induces reliance behavior that reinforces stereotype-aligned errors. These results show that feature-based explanations are not a reliable mechanism to improve distributive fairness, as their ability to do so relies on a human-in-the-loop operationalization of the flawed notion of "fairness through unawareness". Finally, our study design provides a blueprint to evaluate the suitability of other explanations as pathways towards improved distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions.
小貼士
登錄享
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191