Group fairness definitions such as Demographic Parity and Equal Opportunity make assumptions about the underlying decision-problem that restrict them to classification problems. Prior work has translated these definitions to other machine learning environments, such as unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning, by implementing their closest mathematical equivalent. As a result, there are numerous bespoke interpretations of these definitions. Instead, we provide a generalized set of group fairness definitions that unambiguously extend to all machine learning environments while still retaining their original fairness notions. We derive two fairness principles that enable such a generalized framework. First, our framework measures outcomes in terms of utilities, rather than predictions, and does so for both the decision-algorithm and the individual. Second, our framework considers counterfactual outcomes, rather than just observed outcomes, thus preventing loopholes where fairness criteria are satisfied through self-fulfilling prophecies. We provide concrete examples of how our counterfactual utility fairness framework resolves known fairness issues in classification, clustering, and reinforcement learning problems. We also show that many of the bespoke interpretations of Demographic Parity and Equal Opportunity fit nicely as special cases of our framework.
相關內容
Despite being widely used, face recognition models suffer from bias: the probability of a false positive (incorrect face match) strongly depends on sensitive attributes such as the ethnicity of the face. As a result, these models can disproportionately and negatively impact minority groups, particularly when used by law enforcement. The majority of bias reduction methods have several drawbacks: they use an end-to-end retraining approach, may not be feasible due to privacy issues, and often reduce accuracy. An alternative approach is post-processing methods that build fairer decision classifiers using the features of pre-trained models. However, they still have drawbacks: they reduce accuracy (AGENDA, FTC), or require retuning for different false positive rates (FSN). In this work, we introduce the Fairness Calibration (FairCal) method, a post-training approach that: (i) increases model accuracy (improving the state-of-the-art), (ii) produces fairly-calibrated probabilities, (iii) significantly reduces the gap in the false positive rates, (iv) does not require knowledge of the sensitive attribute, and (v) does not require retraining, training an additional model, or retuning. We apply it to the task of Face Verification, and obtain state-of-the-art results with all the above advantages.
Addressing fairness concerns about machine learning models is a crucial step towards their long-term adoption in real-world automated systems. While many approaches have been developed for training fair models from data, little is known about the robustness of these methods to data corruption. In this work we consider fairness-aware learning under worst-case data manipulations. We show that an adversary can in some situations force any learner to return an overly biased classifier, regardless of the sample size and with or without degrading accuracy, and that the strength of the excess bias increases for learning problems with underrepresented protected groups in the data. We also prove that our hardness results are tight up to constant factors. To this end, we study two natural learning algorithms that optimize for both accuracy and fairness and show that these algorithms enjoy guarantees that are order-optimal in terms of the corruption ratio and the protected groups frequencies in the large data limit.
Rideshare and ride-pooling platforms use artificial intelligence-based matching algorithms to pair riders and drivers. However, these platforms can induce inequality either through an unequal income distribution or disparate treatment of riders. We investigate two methods to reduce forms of inequality in ride-pooling platforms: (1) incorporating fairness constraints into the objective function and (2) redistributing income to drivers to reduce income fluctuation and inequality. To evaluate our solutions, we use the New York City taxi data set. For the first method, we find that optimizing for driver-side fairness outperforms state-of-the-art models on the number of riders serviced, both in the worst-off neighborhood and overall, showing that optimizing for fairness can assist profitability in certain circumstances. For the second method, we explore income redistribution as a way to combat income inequality by having drivers keep an $r$ fraction of their income, and contributing the rest to a redistribution pool. For certain values of $r$, most drivers earn near their Shapley value, while still incentivizing drivers to maximize value, thereby avoiding the free-rider problem and reducing income variability. The first method can be extended to many definitions of fairness and the second method provably improves fairness without affecting profitability.
In power systems, one wishes to regulate the aggregate demand of an ensemble of distributed energy resources (DERs), such as controllable loads and battery energy storage systems. We suggest a notion of predictability and fairness, which suggests that the long-term averages of prices or incentives offered should be independent of the initial states of the operators of the DER, the aggregator, and the power grid. We show that this notion cannot be guaranteed with many traditional controllers used by the load aggregator, including the usual proportional-integral (PI) controller. We show that even considering the non-linearity of the alternating-current model, this notion of predictability and fairness can be guaranteed for incrementally input-to-state stable (iISS) controllers, under mild assumptions.
Machine Learning or Artificial Intelligence algorithms have gained considerable scrutiny in recent times owing to their propensity towards imitating and amplifying existing prejudices in society. This has led to a niche but growing body of work that identifies and attempts to fix these biases. A first step towards making these algorithms more fair is designing metrics that measure unfairness. Most existing work in this field deals with either a binary view of fairness (protected vs. unprotected groups) or politically defined categories (race or gender). Such categorization misses the important nuance of intersectionality - biases can often be amplified in subgroups that combine membership from different categories, especially if such a subgroup is particularly underrepresented in historical platforms of opportunity. In this paper, we discuss why fairness metrics need to be looked at under the lens of intersectionality, identify existing work in intersectional fairness, suggest a simple worst case comparison method to expand the definitions of existing group fairness metrics to incorporate intersectionality, and finally conclude with the social, legal and political framework to handle intersectional fairness in the modern context.
Algorithmic fairness has aroused considerable interests in data mining and machine learning communities recently. So far the existing research has been mostly focusing on the development of quantitative metrics to measure algorithm disparities across different protected groups, and approaches for adjusting the algorithm output to reduce such disparities. In this paper, we propose to study the problem of identification of the source of model disparities. Unlike existing interpretation methods which typically learn feature importance, we consider the causal relationships among feature variables and propose a novel framework to decompose the disparity into the sum of contributions from fairness-aware causal paths, which are paths linking the sensitive attribute and the final predictions, on the graph. We also consider the scenario when the directions on certain edges within those paths cannot be determined. Our framework is also model agnostic and applicable to a variety of quantitative disparity measures. Empirical evaluations on both synthetic and real-world data sets are provided to show that our method can provide precise and comprehensive explanations to the model disparities.
Counterfactual explanations are usually generated through heuristics that are sensitive to the search's initial conditions. The absence of guarantees of performance and robustness hinders trustworthiness. In this paper, we take a disciplined approach towards counterfactual explanations for tree ensembles. We advocate for a model-based search aiming at "optimal" explanations and propose efficient mixed-integer programming approaches. We show that isolation forests can be modeled within our framework to focus the search on plausible explanations with a low outlier score. We provide comprehensive coverage of additional constraints that model important objectives, heterogeneous data types, structural constraints on the feature space, along with resource and actionability restrictions. Our experimental analyses demonstrate that the proposed search approach requires a computational effort that is orders of magnitude smaller than previous mathematical programming algorithms. It scales up to large data sets and tree ensembles, where it provides, within seconds, systematic explanations grounded on well-defined models solved to optimality.
Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution (CTDE) has been a popular paradigm in cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) settings and is widely used in many real applications. One of the major challenges in the training process is credit assignment, which aims to deduce the contributions of each agent according to the global rewards. Existing credit assignment methods focus on either decomposing the joint value function into individual value functions or measuring the impact of local observations and actions on the global value function. These approaches lack a thorough consideration of the complicated interactions among multiple agents, leading to an unsuitable assignment of credit and subsequently mediocre results on MARL. We propose Shapley Counterfactual Credit Assignment, a novel method for explicit credit assignment which accounts for the coalition of agents. Specifically, Shapley Value and its desired properties are leveraged in deep MARL to credit any combinations of agents, which grants us the capability to estimate the individual credit for each agent. Despite this capability, the main technical difficulty lies in the computational complexity of Shapley Value who grows factorially as the number of agents. We instead utilize an approximation method via Monte Carlo sampling, which reduces the sample complexity while maintaining its effectiveness. We evaluate our method on StarCraft II benchmarks across different scenarios. Our method outperforms existing cooperative MARL algorithms significantly and achieves the state-of-the-art, with especially large margins on tasks with more severe difficulties.
We present a novel counterfactual framework for both Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) and Open-Set Recognition (OSR), whose common challenge is generalizing to the unseen-classes by only training on the seen-classes. Our idea stems from the observation that the generated samples for unseen-classes are often out of the true distribution, which causes severe recognition rate imbalance between the seen-class (high) and unseen-class (low). We show that the key reason is that the generation is not Counterfactual Faithful, and thus we propose a faithful one, whose generation is from the sample-specific counterfactual question: What would the sample look like, if we set its class attribute to a certain class, while keeping its sample attribute unchanged? Thanks to the faithfulness, we can apply the Consistency Rule to perform unseen/seen binary classification, by asking: Would its counterfactual still look like itself? If ``yes'', the sample is from a certain class, and ``no'' otherwise. Through extensive experiments on ZSL and OSR, we demonstrate that our framework effectively mitigates the seen/unseen imbalance and hence significantly improves the overall performance. Note that this framework is orthogonal to existing methods, thus, it can serve as a new baseline to evaluate how ZSL/OSR models generalize. Codes are available at //github.com/yue-zhongqi/gcm-cf.
Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine-learning-based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently-proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.
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