Automating Procedurally Fair Feature Selection in Machine Learning

Clara Belitz, Lan Jiang, Nigel Bosch
{"title":"Automating Procedurally Fair Feature Selection in Machine Learning","authors":"Clara Belitz, Lan Jiang, Nigel Bosch","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, machine learning has become more common in everyday applications. Consequently, numerous studies have explored issues of unfairness against specific groups or individuals in the context of these applications. Much of the previous work on unfairness in machine learning has focused on the fairness of outcomes rather than process. We propose a feature selection method inspired by fair process (procedural fairness) in addition to fair outcome. Specifically, we introduce the notion of unfairness weight, which indicates how heavily to weight unfairness versus accuracy when measuring the marginal benefit of adding a new feature to a model. Our goal is to maintain accuracy while reducing unfairness, as defined by six common statistical definitions. We show that this approach demonstrably decreases unfairness as the unfairness weight is increased, for most combinations of metrics and classifiers used. A small subset of all the combinations of datasets (4), unfairness metrics (6), and classifiers (3), however, demonstrated relatively low unfairness initially. For these specific combinations, neither unfairness nor accuracy were affected as unfairness weight changed, demonstrating that this method does not reduce accuracy unless there is also an equivalent decrease in unfairness. We also show that this approach selects unfair features and sensitive features for the model less frequently as the unfairness weight increases. As such, this procedure is an effective approach to constructing classifiers that both reduce unfairness and are less likely to include unfair features in the modeling process.","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","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/10.1145/3461702.3462585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

In recent years, machine learning has become more common in everyday applications. Consequently, numerous studies have explored issues of unfairness against specific groups or individuals in the context of these applications. Much of the previous work on unfairness in machine learning has focused on the fairness of outcomes rather than process. We propose a feature selection method inspired by fair process (procedural fairness) in addition to fair outcome. Specifically, we introduce the notion of unfairness weight, which indicates how heavily to weight unfairness versus accuracy when measuring the marginal benefit of adding a new feature to a model. Our goal is to maintain accuracy while reducing unfairness, as defined by six common statistical definitions. We show that this approach demonstrably decreases unfairness as the unfairness weight is increased, for most combinations of metrics and classifiers used. A small subset of all the combinations of datasets (4), unfairness metrics (6), and classifiers (3), however, demonstrated relatively low unfairness initially. For these specific combinations, neither unfairness nor accuracy were affected as unfairness weight changed, demonstrating that this method does not reduce accuracy unless there is also an equivalent decrease in unfairness. We also show that this approach selects unfair features and sensitive features for the model less frequently as the unfairness weight increases. As such, this procedure is an effective approach to constructing classifiers that both reduce unfairness and are less likely to include unfair features in the modeling process.
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
机器学习中程序公平特征选择的自动化
近年来,机器学习在日常应用中变得越来越普遍。因此,许多研究探讨了在这些应用的背景下对特定群体或个人的不公平问题。之前关于机器学习不公平的许多工作都集中在结果的公平性上,而不是过程的公平性。在结果公平的基础上,提出了一种基于过程公平(程序公平)的特征选择方法。具体来说,我们引入了不公平权重的概念,它表明在测量向模型中添加新特征的边际效益时,不公平与准确性的权重有多大。我们的目标是在保持准确性的同时减少不公平,正如六个常见的统计定义所定义的那样。我们表明,对于使用的大多数度量和分类器的组合,随着不公平权重的增加,这种方法明显地减少了不公平。然而,数据集(4)、不公平度量(6)和分类器(3)的所有组合中的一小部分,最初表现出相对较低的不公平。对于这些特定的组合,不公平性和准确性都不会随着不公平性权重的变化而受到影响,这表明除非不公平性也相应降低,否则该方法不会降低准确性。我们还表明,随着不公平权重的增加,该方法为模型选择不公平特征和敏感特征的频率降低。因此,这个过程是构建分类器的有效方法,它既减少了不公平,又不太可能在建模过程中包含不公平的特征。
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