亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have made significant progress, but often suffer from fairness issues, as deep models typically show distinct accuracy differences among certain subgroups (e.g., males and females). Existing research addresses this critical issue by employing fairness-aware loss functions to constrain the last-layer outputs and directly regularize DNNs. Although the fairness of DNNs is improved, it is unclear how the trained network makes a fair prediction, which limits future fairness improvements. In this paper, we investigate fairness from the perspective of decision rationale and define the parameter parity score to characterize the fair decision process of networks by analyzing neuron influence in various subgroups. Extensive empirical studies show that the unfair issue could arise from the unaligned decision rationales of subgroups. Existing fairness regularization terms fail to achieve decision rationale alignment because they only constrain last-layer outputs while ignoring intermediate neuron alignment. To address the issue, we formulate the fairness as a new task, i.e., decision rationale alignment that requires DNNs' neurons to have consistent responses on subgroups at both intermediate processes and the final prediction. To make this idea practical during optimization, we relax the naive objective function and propose gradient-guided parity alignment, which encourages gradient-weighted consistency of neurons across subgroups. Extensive experiments on a variety of datasets show that our method can significantly enhance fairness while sustaining a high level of accuracy and outperforming other approaches by a wide margin.

In this work, we present Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups (FACTS), a framework for auditing subgroup fairness through counterfactual explanations. We start with revisiting (and generalizing) existing notions and introducing new, more refined notions of subgroup fairness. We aim to (a) formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse, i.e. receive the desired outcome, either at the micro level, considering members of the subgroup individually, or at the macro level, considering the subgroup as a whole, and (b) introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse. We accompany these notions with an efficient, model-agnostic, highly parameterizable, and explainable framework for evaluating subgroup fairness. We demonstrate the advantages, the wide applicability, and the efficiency of our approach through a thorough experimental evaluation of different benchmark datasets.

As the scale of machine learning models increases, trends such as scaling laws anticipate consistent downstream improvements in predictive accuracy. However, these trends take the perspective of a single model-provider in isolation, while in reality providers often compete with each other for users. In this work, we demonstrate that competition can fundamentally alter the behavior of these scaling trends, even causing overall predictive accuracy across users to be non-monotonic or decreasing with scale. We define a model of competition for classification tasks, and use data representations as a lens for studying the impact of increases in scale. We find many settings where improving data representation quality (as measured by Bayes risk) decreases the overall predictive accuracy across users (i.e., social welfare) for a marketplace of competing model-providers. Our examples range from closed-form formulas in simple settings to simulations with pretrained representations on CIFAR-10. At a conceptual level, our work suggests that favorable scaling trends for individual model-providers need not translate to downstream improvements in social welfare in marketplaces with multiple model providers.

Fairness has become increasingly pivotal in medical image recognition. However, without mitigating bias, deploying unfair medical AI systems could harm the interests of underprivileged populations. In this paper, we observe that while features extracted from the deeper layers of neural networks generally offer higher accuracy, fairness conditions deteriorate as we extract features from deeper layers. This phenomenon motivates us to extend the concept of multi-exit frameworks. Unlike existing works mainly focusing on accuracy, our multi-exit framework is fairness-oriented; the internal classifiers are trained to be more accurate and fairer, with high extensibility to apply to most existing fairness-aware frameworks. During inference, any instance with high confidence from an internal classifier is allowed to exit early. Experimental results show that the proposed framework can improve the fairness condition over the state-of-the-art in two dermatological disease datasets.

Federated learning (FL) has been a hot topic in recent years. Ever since it was introduced, researchers have endeavored to devise FL systems that protect privacy or ensure fair results, with most research focusing on one or the other. As two crucial ethical notions, the interactions between privacy and fairness are comparatively less studied. However, since privacy and fairness compete, considering each in isolation will inevitably come at the cost of the other. To provide a broad view of these two critical topics, we presented a detailed literature review of privacy and fairness issues, highlighting unique challenges posed by FL and solutions in federated settings. We further systematically surveyed different interactions between privacy and fairness, trying to reveal how privacy and fairness could affect each other and point out new research directions in fair and private FL.

Today's VQA models still tend to capture superficial linguistic correlations in the training set and fail to generalize to the test set with different QA distributions. To reduce these language biases, recent VQA works introduce an auxiliary question-only model to regularize the training of targeted VQA model, and achieve dominating performance on diagnostic benchmarks for out-of-distribution testing. However, due to complex model design, these ensemble-based methods are unable to equip themselves with two indispensable characteristics of an ideal VQA model: 1) Visual-explainable: The model should rely on the right visual regions when making decisions. 2) Question-sensitive: The model should be sensitive to the linguistic variations in questions. To this end, we propose a novel model-agnostic Counterfactual Samples Synthesizing and Training (CSST) strategy. After training with CSST, VQA models are forced to focus on all critical objects and words, which significantly improves both visual-explainable and question-sensitive abilities. Specifically, CSST is composed of two parts: Counterfactual Samples Synthesizing (CSS) and Counterfactual Samples Training (CST). CSS generates counterfactual samples by carefully masking critical objects in images or words in questions and assigning pseudo ground-truth answers. CST not only trains the VQA models with both complementary samples to predict respective ground-truth answers, but also urges the VQA models to further distinguish the original samples and superficially similar counterfactual ones. To facilitate the CST training, we propose two variants of supervised contrastive loss for VQA, and design an effective positive and negative sample selection mechanism based on CSS. Extensive experiments have shown the effectiveness of CSST. Particularly, by building on top of model LMH+SAR, we achieve record-breaking performance on all OOD benchmarks.

Discrimination in machine learning often arises along multiple dimensions (a.k.a. protected attributes); it is then desirable to ensure \emph{intersectional fairness} -- i.e., that no subgroup is discriminated against. It is known that ensuring \emph{marginal fairness} for every dimension independently is not sufficient in general. Due to the exponential number of subgroups, however, directly measuring intersectional fairness from data is impossible. In this paper, our primary goal is to understand in detail the relationship between marginal and intersectional fairness through statistical analysis. We first identify a set of sufficient conditions under which an exact relationship can be obtained. Then, we prove bounds (easily computable through marginal fairness and other meaningful statistical quantities) in high-probability on intersectional fairness in the general case. Beyond their descriptive value, we show that these theoretical bounds can be leveraged to derive a heuristic improving the approximation and bounds of intersectional fairness by choosing, in a relevant manner, protected attributes for which we describe intersectional subgroups. Finally, we test the performance of our approximations and bounds on real and synthetic data-sets.

One cannot make truly fair decisions using integer linear programs unless one controls the selection probabilities of the (possibly many) optimal solutions. For this purpose, we propose a unified framework when binary decision variables represent agents with dichotomous preferences, who only care about whether they are selected in the final solution. We develop several general-purpose algorithms to fairly select optimal solutions, for example, by maximizing the Nash product or the minimum selection probability, or by using a random ordering of the agents as a selection criterion (Random Serial Dictatorship). As such, we embed the black-box procedure of solving an integer linear program into a framework that is explainable from start to finish. Moreover, we study the axiomatic properties of the proposed methods by embedding our framework into the rich literature of cooperative bargaining and probabilistic social choice. Lastly, we evaluate the proposed methods on a specific application, namely kidney exchange. We find that while the methods maximizing the Nash product or the minimum selection probability outperform the other methods on the evaluated welfare criteria, methods such as Random Serial Dictatorship perform reasonably well in computation times that are similar to those of finding a single optimal solution.

The Diverse Communities Data Excerpts are the core of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) program to strengthen understanding of tabular data deidentification technologies such as synthetic data. Synthetic data is an ambitious attempt to democratize the benefits of big data; it uses generative models to recreate sensitive personal data with new records for public release. However, it is vulnerable to the same bias and privacy issues that impact other machine learning applications, and can even amplify those issues. When deidentified data distributions introduce bias or artifacts, or leak sensitive information, they propagate these problems to downstream applications. Furthermore, real-world survey conditions such as diverse subpopulations, heterogeneous non-ordinal data spaces, and complex dependencies between features pose specific challenges for synthetic data algorithms. These observations motivate the need for real, diverse, and complex benchmark data to support a robust understanding of algorithm behavior. This paper introduces four contributions: new theoretical work on the relationship between diverse populations and challenges for equitable deidentification; public benchmark data focused on diverse populations and challenging features curated from the American Community Survey; an open source suite of evaluation metrology for deidentified datasets; and an archive of evaluation results on a broad collection of deidentification techniques. The initial set of evaluation results demonstrate the suitability of these tools for investigations in this field.