Fair ranking problems arise in many decision-making processes that often necessitate a trade-off between accuracy and fairness. Many existing studies have proposed correction methods such as adding fairness constraints to a ranking model's loss. However, the challenge of correcting the data bias for fair ranking remains, and the trade-off of the ranking models leaves room for improvement. In this paper, we propose a fair ranking framework that evaluates the order of training data in a pairwise manner as well as various fairness measurements in ranking. This study is the first proposal of a pre-processing method that solves fair ranking problems using the pairwise ordering method with our best knowledge. The fair pairwise ordering method is prominent in training the fair ranking models because it ensures that the resulting ranking likely becomes parity across groups. As far as the fairness measurements in ranking are represented as a linear constraint of the ranking models, we proved that the minimization of loss function subject to the constraints is reduced to the closed solution of the minimization problem augmented by weights to training data. This closed solution inspires us to present a practical and stable algorithm that iterates the optimization of weights and model parameters. The empirical results over real-world datasets demonstrated that our method outperforms the existing methods in the trade-off between accuracy and fairness over real-world datasets and various fairness measurements.
相關內容
We share our experience with the recently released WILDS benchmark, a collection of ten datasets dedicated to developing models and training strategies which are robust to domain shifts. Several experiments yield a couple of critical observations which we believe are of general interest for any future work on WILDS. Our study focuses on two datasets: iWildCam and FMoW. We show that (1) Conducting separate cross-validation for each evaluation metric is crucial for both datasets, (2) A weak correlation between validation and test performance might make model development difficult for iWildCam, (3) Minor changes in the training of hyper-parameters improve the baseline by a relatively large margin (mainly on FMoW), (4) There is a strong correlation between certain domains and certain target labels (mainly on iWildCam). To the best of our knowledge, no prior work on these datasets has reported these observations despite their obvious importance. Our code is public.
We consider the problem of estimating preferences of human agents from data of strategic systems where the agents repeatedly interact. Recently, it was demonstrated that a new estimation method called "quantal regret" produces more accurate estimates for human agents than the classic approach that assumes that agents are rational and reach a Nash equilibrium; however, this method has not been compared to methods that take into account behavioral aspects of human play. In this paper we leverage equilibrium concepts from behavioral economics for this purpose and ask how well they perform compared to the quantal regret and Nash equilibrium methods. We develop four estimation methods based on established behavioral equilibrium models to infer the utilities of human agents from observed data of normal-form games. The equilibrium models we study are quantal-response equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium, and impulse-balance equilibrium. We show that in some of these concepts the inference is achieved analytically via closed formulas, while in the others the inference is achieved only algorithmically. We use experimental data of 2x2 games to evaluate the estimation success of these behavioral equilibrium methods. The results show that the estimates they produce are more accurate than the estimates of the Nash equilibrium. The comparison with the quantal-regret method shows that the behavioral methods have better hit rates, but the quantal-regret method performs better in terms of the overall mean squared error, and we discuss the differences between the methods.
The rapid growth of data in the recent years has led to the development of complex learning algorithms that are often used to make decisions in real world. While the positive impact of the algorithms has been tremendous, there is a need to mitigate any bias arising from either training samples or implicit assumptions made about the data samples. This need becomes critical when algorithms are used in automated decision making systems that can hugely impact people's lives. Many approaches have been proposed to make learning algorithms fair by detecting and mitigating bias in different stages of optimization. However, due to a lack of a universal definition of fairness, these algorithms optimize for a particular interpretation of fairness which makes them limited for real world use. Moreover, an underlying assumption that is common to all algorithms is the apparent equivalence of achieving fairness and removing bias. In other words, there is no user defined criteria that can be incorporated into the optimization procedure for producing a fair algorithm. Motivated by these shortcomings of existing methods, we propose the CONFAIR procedure that produces a fair algorithm by incorporating user constraints into the optimization procedure. Furthermore, we make the process interpretable by estimating the most predictive features from data. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on several real world datasets using different fairness criteria.
We propose a simple and efficient clustering method for high-dimensional data with a large number of clusters. Our algorithm achieves high-performance by evaluating distances of datapoints with a subset of the cluster centres. Our contribution is substantially more efficient than k-means as it does not require an all to all comparison of data points and clusters. We show that the optimal solutions of our approximation are the same as in the exact solution. However, our approach is considerably more efficient at extracting these clusters compared to the state-of-the-art. We compare our approximation with the exact k-means and alternative approximation approaches on a series of standardised clustering tasks. For the evaluation, we consider the algorithmic complexity, including number of operations to convergence, and the stability of the results.
Recent work has proposed stochastic Plackett-Luce (PL) ranking models as a robust choice for optimizing relevance and fairness metrics. Unlike their deterministic counterparts that require heuristic optimization algorithms, PL models are fully differentiable. Theoretically, they can be used to optimize ranking metrics via stochastic gradient descent. However, in practice, the computation of the gradient is infeasible because it requires one to iterate over all possible permutations of items. Consequently, actual applications rely on approximating the gradient via sampling techniques. In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm: PL-Rank, that estimates the gradient of a PL ranking model w.r.t. both relevance and fairness metrics. Unlike existing approaches that are based on policy gradients, PL-Rank makes use of the specific structure of PL models and ranking metrics. Our experimental analysis shows that PL-Rank has a greater sample-efficiency and is computationally less costly than existing policy gradients, resulting in faster convergence at higher performance. PL-Rank further enables the industry to apply PL models for more relevant and fairer real-world ranking systems.
Rankings, especially those in search and recommendation systems, often determine how people access information and how information is exposed to people. Therefore, how to balance the relevance and fairness of information exposure is considered as one of the key problems for modern IR systems. As conventional ranking frameworks that myopically sorts documents with their relevance will inevitably introduce unfair result exposure, recent studies on ranking fairness mostly focus on dynamic ranking paradigms where result rankings can be adapted in real-time to support fairness in groups (i.e., races, genders, etc.). Existing studies on fairness in dynamic learning to rank, however, often achieve the overall fairness of document exposure in ranked lists by significantly sacrificing the performance of result relevance and fairness on the top results. To address this problem, we propose a fair and unbiased ranking method named Maximal Marginal Fairness (MMF). The algorithm integrates unbiased estimators for both relevance and merit-based fairness while providing an explicit controller that balances the selection of documents to maximize the marginal relevance and fairness in top-k results. Theoretical and empirical analysis shows that, with small compromises on long list fairness, our method achieves superior efficiency and effectiveness comparing to the state-of-the-art algorithms in both relevance and fairness for top-k rankings.
Training datasets for machine learning often have some form of missingness. For example, to learn a model for deciding whom to give a loan, the available training data includes individuals who were given a loan in the past, but not those who were not. This missingness, if ignored, nullifies any fairness guarantee of the training procedure when the model is deployed. Using causal graphs, we characterize the missingness mechanisms in different real-world scenarios. We show conditions under which various distributions, used in popular fairness algorithms, can or can not be recovered from the training data. Our theoretical results imply that many of these algorithms can not guarantee fairness in practice. Modeling missingness also helps to identify correct design principles for fair algorithms. For example, in multi-stage settings where decisions are made in multiple screening rounds, we use our framework to derive the minimal distributions required to design a fair algorithm. Our proposed algorithm decentralizes the decision-making process and still achieves similar performance to the optimal algorithm that requires centralization and non-recoverable distributions.
Biomedical image segmentation is an important task in many medical applications. Segmentation methods based on convolutional neural networks attain state-of-the-art accuracy; however, they typically rely on supervised training with large labeled datasets. Labeling datasets of medical images requires significant expertise and time, and is infeasible at large scales. To tackle the lack of labeled data, researchers use techniques such as hand-engineered preprocessing steps, hand-tuned architectures, and data augmentation. However, these techniques involve costly engineering efforts, and are typically dataset-specific. We present an automated data augmentation method for medical images. We demonstrate our method on the task of segmenting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans, focusing on the one-shot segmentation scenario -- a practical challenge in many medical applications. Our method requires only a single segmented scan, and leverages other unlabeled scans in a semi-supervised approach. We learn a model of transforms from the images, and use the model along with the labeled example to synthesize additional labeled training examples for supervised segmentation. Each transform is comprised of a spatial deformation field and an intensity change, enabling the synthesis of complex effects such as variations in anatomy and image acquisition procedures. Augmenting the training of a supervised segmenter with these new examples provides significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods for one-shot biomedical image segmentation. Our code is available at //github.com/xamyzhao/brainstorm.
Developing classification algorithms that are fair with respect to sensitive attributes of the data has become an important problem due to the growing deployment of classification algorithms in various social contexts. Several recent works have focused on fairness with respect to a specific metric, modeled the corresponding fair classification problem as a constrained optimization problem, and developed tailored algorithms to solve them. Despite this, there still remain important metrics for which we do not have fair classifiers and many of the aforementioned algorithms do not come with theoretical guarantees; perhaps because the resulting optimization problem is non-convex. The main contribution of this paper is a new meta-algorithm for classification that takes as input a large class of fairness constraints, with respect to multiple non-disjoint sensitive attributes, and which comes with provable guarantees. This is achieved by first developing a meta-algorithm for a large family of classification problems with convex constraints, and then showing that classification problems with general types of fairness constraints can be reduced to those in this family. We present empirical results that show that our algorithm can achieve near-perfect fairness with respect to various fairness metrics, and that the loss in accuracy due to the imposed fairness constraints is often small. Overall, this work unifies several prior works on fair classification, presents a practical algorithm with theoretical guarantees, and can handle fairness metrics that were previously not possible.
Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources, such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias, which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality.
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