Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Algorithmic Discrimination

Junaid Ali, Preethi Lahoti, K. Gummadi
{"title":"Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Algorithmic Discrimination","authors":"Junaid Ali, Preethi Lahoti, K. Gummadi","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional approaches to ensure group fairness in algorithmic decision making aim to equalize \"total\" error rates for different subgroups in the population. In contrast, we argue that the fairness approaches should instead focus only on equalizing errors arising due to model uncertainty (a.k.a epistemic uncertainty), caused due to lack of knowledge about the best model or due to lack of data. In other words, our proposal calls for ignoring the errors that occur due to uncertainty inherent in the data, i.e., aleatoric uncertainty. We draw a connection between predictive multiplicity and model uncertainty and argue that the techniques from predictive multiplicity could be used to identify errors made due to model uncertainty. We propose scalable convex proxies to come up with classifiers that exhibit predictive multiplicity and empirically show that our methods are comparable in performance and up to four orders of magnitude faster than the current state-of-the-art. We further pro- pose methods to achieve our goal of equalizing group error rates arising due to model uncertainty in algorithmic decision making and demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods using synthetic and real-world datasets","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Traditional approaches to ensure group fairness in algorithmic decision making aim to equalize "total" error rates for different subgroups in the population. In contrast, we argue that the fairness approaches should instead focus only on equalizing errors arising due to model uncertainty (a.k.a epistemic uncertainty), caused due to lack of knowledge about the best model or due to lack of data. In other words, our proposal calls for ignoring the errors that occur due to uncertainty inherent in the data, i.e., aleatoric uncertainty. We draw a connection between predictive multiplicity and model uncertainty and argue that the techniques from predictive multiplicity could be used to identify errors made due to model uncertainty. We propose scalable convex proxies to come up with classifiers that exhibit predictive multiplicity and empirically show that our methods are comparable in performance and up to four orders of magnitude faster than the current state-of-the-art. We further pro- pose methods to achieve our goal of equalizing group error rates arising due to model uncertainty in algorithmic decision making and demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods using synthetic and real-world datasets
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
算法判别中模型不确定性的核算
在算法决策中,确保群体公平的传统方法旨在使总体中不同子群体的“总”错误率相等。相反,我们认为公平方法应该只关注平衡由于模型不确定性(又称认知不确定性)而引起的错误,这种不确定性是由于缺乏对最佳模型的了解或由于缺乏数据而引起的。换句话说,我们的建议要求忽略由于数据中固有的不确定性而产生的误差,即任意不确定性。我们在预测多重性和模型不确定性之间建立了联系,并认为预测多重性的技术可以用来识别由于模型不确定性而产生的错误。我们提出了可扩展的凸代理来提出具有预测多样性的分类器,并且经验表明,我们的方法在性能上是可比较的,并且比当前最先进的方法快了四个数量级。我们进一步提出了一些方法来实现我们的目标,即平衡算法决策中由于模型不确定性而产生的组错误率,并使用合成和现实世界的数据集证明了这些方法的有效性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Improving Fairness in Budget-Constrained Decision Making using Confidence Thresholds Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values Artificial Intelligence and the Purpose of Social Systems Ethically Compliant Planning within Moral Communities Co-design and Ethical Artificial Intelligence for Health: Myths and Misconceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1