Social aspects · fairness

The ROC curve is the major tool for assessing not only the performance but also the fairness properties of a similarity scoring function. In order to draw reliable conclusions based on empirical ROC analysis, accurately evaluating the uncertainty level related to statistical versions of the ROC curves of interest is absolutely necessary, especially for applications with considerable societal impact such as Face Recognition. In this article, we prove asymptotic guarantees for empirical ROC curves of similarity functions as well as for by-product metrics useful to assess fairness. We also explain that, because the false acceptance/rejection rates are of the form of U-statistics in the case of similarity scoring, the naive bootstrap approach may jeopardize the assessment procedure. A dedicated recentering technique must be used instead. Beyond the theoretical analysis carried out, various experiments using real face image datasets provide strong empirical evidence of the practical relevance of the methods promoted here, when applied to several ROC-based measures such as popular fairness metrics.

Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of _disguised procedural unfairness_, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for _pure procedural justice_ (Rawls, 1971; 2001), we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing _disguised procedural unfairness_, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

This work presents an information-theoretic perspective to group fairness trade-offs in federated learning (FL) with respect to sensitive attributes, such as gender, race, etc. Existing works often focus on either $\textit{global fairness}$ (overall disparity of the model across all clients) or $\textit{local fairness}$ (disparity of the model at each client), without always considering their trade-offs. There is a lack of understanding regarding the interplay between global and local fairness in FL, particularly under data heterogeneity, and if and when one implies the other. To address this gap, we leverage a body of work in information theory called partial information decomposition (PID), which first identifies three sources of unfairness in FL, namely, $\textit{Unique Disparity}$, $\textit{Redundant Disparity}$, and $\textit{Masked Disparity}$. We demonstrate how these three disparities contribute to global and local fairness using canonical examples. This decomposition helps us derive fundamental limits on the trade-off between global and local fairness, highlighting where they agree or disagree. We introduce the $\textit{Accuracy and Global-Local Fairness Optimality Problem}$ (AGLFOP), a convex optimization that defines the theoretical limits of accuracy and fairness trade-offs, identifying the best possible performance any FL strategy can attain given a dataset and client distribution. We also present experimental results on synthetic datasets and the ADULT dataset to support our theoretical findings.

Relational learning has gained significant attention, led by the expressiveness of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) on graph data. While the inherent biases in common graph data are involved in GNN training, it poses a serious challenge to constraining the GNN output perturbations induced by input biases, thereby safeguarding fairness during training. The Lipschitz bound, a technique from robust statistics, can limit the maximum changes in the output concerning the input, taking into account associated irrelevant biased factors. It is an efficient and provable method to examine the output stability of machine learning models without incurring additional computational costs. Recently, its use in controlling the stability of Euclidean neural networks, the calculation of the precise Lipschitz bound remains elusive for non-Euclidean neural networks like GNNs, especially within fairness contexts. However, no existing research has investigated Lipschitz bounds to shed light on stabilizing the GNN outputs, especially when working on graph data with implicit biases. To narrow this gap, we begin with the general GNNs operating on relational data, and formulate a Lipschitz bound to limit the changes in the output regarding biases associated with the input. Additionally, we theoretically analyze how the Lipschitz bound of a GNN model could constrain the output perturbations induced by biases learned from data for fairness training. We experimentally validate the Lipschitz bound's effectiveness in limiting biases of the model output. Finally, from a training dynamics perspective, we demonstrate why the theoretical Lipschitz bound can effectively guide the GNN training to better trade-off between accuracy and fairness.

Current tools for machine learning fairness only admit a limited range of fairness definitions and have seen little integration with automatic differentiation libraries, despite the central role these libraries play in modern machine learning pipelines. We introduce a framework of fairness regularization terms (fairret) which quantify bias as modular objectives that are easily integrated in automatic differentiation pipelines. By employing a general definition of fairness in terms of linear-fractional statistics, a wide class of fairrets can be computed efficiently. Experiments show the behavior of their gradients and their utility in enforcing fairness with minimal loss of predictive power compared to baselines. Our contribution includes a PyTorch implementation of the fairret framework.

The goal of social alignment for AI systems is to make sure these models can conduct themselves appropriately following social values. Unlike humans who establish a consensus on value judgments through social interaction, current language models (LMs) are trained to rigidly recite the corpus in social isolation, which causes poor generalization in unfamiliar cases and the lack of robustness under adversarial attacks. In this work, we introduce a new training paradigm that enables LMs to learn from simulated social interactions. Compared with existing methods, our method is much more scalable and efficient, and shows superior performance in alignment benchmarks and human evaluation.

Fairness, especially group fairness, is an important consideration in the context of machine learning systems. The most commonly adopted group fairness-enhancing techniques are in-processing methods that rely on a mixture of a fairness objective (e.g., demographic parity) and a task-specific objective (e.g., cross-entropy) during the training process. However, when data arrives in an online fashion – one instance at a time – optimizing such fairness objectives poses several challenges. In particular, group fairness objectives are defined using expectations of predictions across different demographic groups. In the online setting, where the algorithm has access to a single instance at a time, estimating the group fairness objective requires additional storage and significantly more computation (e.g., forward/backward passes) than the task-specific objective at every time step. In this paper, we propose Aranyani, an ensemble of oblique decision trees, to make fair decisions in online settings. The hierarchical tree structure of Aranyani enables parameter isolation and allows us to efficiently compute the fairness gradients using aggregate statistics of previous decisions, eliminating the need for additional storage and forward/backward passes. We also present an efficient framework to train Aranyani and theoretically analyze several of its properties. We conduct empirical evaluations on 5 publicly available benchmarks (including vision and language datasets) to show that Aranyani achieves a better accuracy-fairness trade-off compared to baseline approaches.

Fairness for machine learning predictions is widely required in practice for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. Existing work typically focuses on settings without unobserved confounding, even though unobserved confounding can lead to severe violations of causal fairness and, thus, unfair predictions. In this work, we analyze the sensitivity of causal fairness to unobserved confounding. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive bounds for causal fairness metrics under different sources of observed confounding. This enables practitioners to audit the sensitivity of their machine learning models to unobserved confounding in fairness-critical applications. Second, we propose a novel neural framework for learning fair predictions, which allows us to offer worst-case guarantees of the extent to which causal fairness can be violated due to unobserved confounding. Third, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in a series of experiments, including a real-world case study about predicting prison sentences. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to study causal fairness under observed confounding. To this end, our work is of direct practical value for auditing and ensuring the fairness of predictions in high-stakes applications.