Measuring Model Biases in the Absence of Ground Truth

Osman Aka, Ken Burke, Alex Bauerle, Christina Greer, Margaret Mitchell
{"title":"Measuring Model Biases in the Absence of Ground Truth","authors":"Osman Aka, Ken Burke, Alex Bauerle, Christina Greer, Margaret Mitchell","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The measurement of bias in machine learning often focuses on model performance across identity subgroups (such as man and woman) with respect to groundtruth labels. However, these methods do not directly measure the associations that a model may have learned, for example between labels and identity subgroups. Further, measuring a model's bias requires a fully annotated evaluation dataset which may not be easily available in practice. We present an elegant mathematical solution that tackles both issues simultaneously, using image classification as a working example. By treating a classification model's predictions for a given image as a set of labels analogous to a \"bag of words\", we rank the biases that a model has learned with respect to different identity labels. We use man, woman as a concrete example of an identity label set (although this set need not be binary), and present rankings for the labels that are most biased towards one identity or the other. We demonstrate how the statistical properties of different association metrics can lead to different rankings of the most \"gender biased\" labels, and conclude that normalized pointwise mutual information (nPMI) is most useful in practice. Finally, we announce an open-sourced nPMI visualization tool using TensorBoard.","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"358 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","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/10.1145/3461702.3462557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

The measurement of bias in machine learning often focuses on model performance across identity subgroups (such as man and woman) with respect to groundtruth labels. However, these methods do not directly measure the associations that a model may have learned, for example between labels and identity subgroups. Further, measuring a model's bias requires a fully annotated evaluation dataset which may not be easily available in practice. We present an elegant mathematical solution that tackles both issues simultaneously, using image classification as a working example. By treating a classification model's predictions for a given image as a set of labels analogous to a "bag of words", we rank the biases that a model has learned with respect to different identity labels. We use man, woman as a concrete example of an identity label set (although this set need not be binary), and present rankings for the labels that are most biased towards one identity or the other. We demonstrate how the statistical properties of different association metrics can lead to different rankings of the most "gender biased" labels, and conclude that normalized pointwise mutual information (nPMI) is most useful in practice. Finally, we announce an open-sourced nPMI visualization tool using TensorBoard.
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
在缺乏基础真理的情况下测量模型偏差
机器学习中偏差的测量通常侧重于相对于基础真值标签的跨身份子组(如男性和女性)的模型性能。然而,这些方法并不能直接测量模型可能已经学习到的关联,例如标签和身份子组之间的关联。此外,测量模型的偏差需要一个完全注释的评估数据集,这在实践中可能不容易获得。我们提出了一个优雅的数学解决方案,同时解决了这两个问题,使用图像分类作为一个工作示例。通过将分类模型对给定图像的预测视为一组类似于“单词袋”的标签,我们将模型所学到的偏差与不同的身份标签进行排序。我们使用男人,女人作为身份标签集的具体例子(尽管这个集不需要是二元的),并给出最偏向于一个身份或另一个身份的标签的排名。我们展示了不同关联度量的统计属性如何导致最“性别偏见”标签的不同排名,并得出归一化的点互信息(nPMI)在实践中最有用的结论。最后,我们宣布了一个使用TensorBoard的开源nPMI可视化工具。
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