公平性应该是衡量标准还是模型?基于模型的机器学习管道偏差评估框架

IF 5.4 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACM Transactions on Information Systems Pub Date : 2024-01-23 DOI:10.1145/3641276
John P. Lalor, Ahmed Abbasi, Kezia Oketch, Yi Yang, Nicole Forsgren
{"title":"公平性应该是衡量标准还是模型?基于模型的机器学习管道偏差评估框架","authors":"John P. Lalor, Ahmed Abbasi, Kezia Oketch, Yi Yang, Nicole Forsgren","doi":"10.1145/3641276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fairness measurement is crucial for assessing algorithmic bias in various types of machine learning (ML) models, including ones used for search relevance, recommendation, personalization, talent analytics, and natural language processing. However, the fairness measurement paradigm is currently dominated by fairness metrics that examine disparities in allocation and/or prediction error as univariate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a protected attribute or group. Although important and effective in assessing ML bias in certain contexts such as recidivism, existing metrics don’t work well in many real-world applications of ML characterized by imperfect models applied to an array of instances encompassing a multivariate mixture of protected attributes, that are part of a broader process pipeline. Consequently, the upstream representational harm quantified by existing metrics based on how the model represents protected groups doesn’t necessarily relate to allocational harm in the application of such models in downstream policy/decision contexts. We propose FAIR-Frame, a model-based framework for parsimoniously modeling fairness across multiple protected attributes in regard to the representational and allocational harm associated with the upstream design/development and downstream usage of ML models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed framework on two testbeds pertaining to text classification using pretrained language models. The upstream testbeds encompass over fifty thousand documents associated with twenty-eight thousand users, seven protected attributes and five different classification tasks. The downstream testbeds span three policy outcomes and over 5.41 million total observations. Results in comparison with several existing metrics show that the upstream representational harm measures produced by FAIR-Frame and other metrics are significantly different from one another, and that FAIR-Frame’s representational fairness measures have the highest percentage alignment and lowest error with allocational harm observed in downstream applications. Our findings have important implications for various ML contexts, including information retrieval, user modeling, digital platforms, and text classification, where responsible and trustworthy AI are becoming an imperative.</p>","PeriodicalId":50936,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Information Systems","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Fairness be a Metric or a Model? A Model-based Framework for Assessing Bias in Machine Learning Pipelines\",\"authors\":\"John P. Lalor, Ahmed Abbasi, Kezia Oketch, Yi Yang, Nicole Forsgren\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3641276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Fairness measurement is crucial for assessing algorithmic bias in various types of machine learning (ML) models, including ones used for search relevance, recommendation, personalization, talent analytics, and natural language processing. However, the fairness measurement paradigm is currently dominated by fairness metrics that examine disparities in allocation and/or prediction error as univariate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a protected attribute or group. Although important and effective in assessing ML bias in certain contexts such as recidivism, existing metrics don’t work well in many real-world applications of ML characterized by imperfect models applied to an array of instances encompassing a multivariate mixture of protected attributes, that are part of a broader process pipeline. Consequently, the upstream representational harm quantified by existing metrics based on how the model represents protected groups doesn’t necessarily relate to allocational harm in the application of such models in downstream policy/decision contexts. We propose FAIR-Frame, a model-based framework for parsimoniously modeling fairness across multiple protected attributes in regard to the representational and allocational harm associated with the upstream design/development and downstream usage of ML models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed framework on two testbeds pertaining to text classification using pretrained language models. The upstream testbeds encompass over fifty thousand documents associated with twenty-eight thousand users, seven protected attributes and five different classification tasks. The downstream testbeds span three policy outcomes and over 5.41 million total observations. Results in comparison with several existing metrics show that the upstream representational harm measures produced by FAIR-Frame and other metrics are significantly different from one another, and that FAIR-Frame’s representational fairness measures have the highest percentage alignment and lowest error with allocational harm observed in downstream applications. Our findings have important implications for various ML contexts, including information retrieval, user modeling, digital platforms, and text classification, where responsible and trustworthy AI are becoming an imperative.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50936,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3641276\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3641276","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公平性测量对于评估各类机器学习(ML)模型(包括用于搜索相关性、推荐、个性化、人才分析和自然语言处理的模型)中的算法偏差至关重要。然而,公平性测量范式目前主要由公平性指标主导,这些指标将分配和/或预测误差的差异作为受保护属性或群体的单变量关键性能指标(KPI)进行检查。尽管在某些情况下(如累犯)评估 ML 偏差非常重要且有效,但现有指标在 ML 的许多实际应用中效果并不理想,这些应用的特点是将不完善的模型应用于一系列实例,其中包括受保护属性的多变量混合物,而这些实例是更广泛流程管道的一部分。因此,基于模型如何代表受保护群体的现有指标所量化的上游代表危害并不一定与在下游政策/决策环境中应用此类模型时的分配危害相关。我们提出了 FAIR-Frame(公平框架),这是一个基于模型的框架,用于对多重受保护属性的公平性进行简化建模,以反映与 ML 模型的上游设计/开发和下游使用相关的代表性和分配性损害。我们在使用预训练语言模型进行文本分类的两个测试平台上评估了我们提出的框架的有效性。上游测试平台包含五万多份文档,涉及两万八千名用户、七个受保护属性和五个不同的分类任务。下游测试平台涵盖三种政策结果和超过 541 万个观察结果。与几种现有度量方法的比较结果表明,FAIR-Frame 和其他度量方法产生的上游代表性危害度量彼此差异显著,FAIR-Frame 的代表性公平度量与下游应用中观察到的分配性危害具有最高的一致性百分比和最低的误差。我们的发现对信息检索、用户建模、数字平台和文本分类等各种人工智能领域具有重要意义,在这些领域,负责任和可信赖的人工智能正成为当务之急。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Should Fairness be a Metric or a Model? A Model-based Framework for Assessing Bias in Machine Learning Pipelines

Fairness measurement is crucial for assessing algorithmic bias in various types of machine learning (ML) models, including ones used for search relevance, recommendation, personalization, talent analytics, and natural language processing. However, the fairness measurement paradigm is currently dominated by fairness metrics that examine disparities in allocation and/or prediction error as univariate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a protected attribute or group. Although important and effective in assessing ML bias in certain contexts such as recidivism, existing metrics don’t work well in many real-world applications of ML characterized by imperfect models applied to an array of instances encompassing a multivariate mixture of protected attributes, that are part of a broader process pipeline. Consequently, the upstream representational harm quantified by existing metrics based on how the model represents protected groups doesn’t necessarily relate to allocational harm in the application of such models in downstream policy/decision contexts. We propose FAIR-Frame, a model-based framework for parsimoniously modeling fairness across multiple protected attributes in regard to the representational and allocational harm associated with the upstream design/development and downstream usage of ML models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed framework on two testbeds pertaining to text classification using pretrained language models. The upstream testbeds encompass over fifty thousand documents associated with twenty-eight thousand users, seven protected attributes and five different classification tasks. The downstream testbeds span three policy outcomes and over 5.41 million total observations. Results in comparison with several existing metrics show that the upstream representational harm measures produced by FAIR-Frame and other metrics are significantly different from one another, and that FAIR-Frame’s representational fairness measures have the highest percentage alignment and lowest error with allocational harm observed in downstream applications. Our findings have important implications for various ML contexts, including information retrieval, user modeling, digital platforms, and text classification, where responsible and trustworthy AI are becoming an imperative.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
ACM Transactions on Information Systems 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
165
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) publishes papers on information retrieval (such as search engines, recommender systems) that contain: new principled information retrieval models or algorithms with sound empirical validation; observational, experimental and/or theoretical studies yielding new insights into information retrieval or information seeking; accounts of applications of existing information retrieval techniques that shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the techniques; formalization of new information retrieval or information seeking tasks and of methods for evaluating the performance on those tasks; development of content (text, image, speech, video, etc) analysis methods to support information retrieval and information seeking; development of computational models of user information preferences and interaction behaviors; creation and analysis of evaluation methodologies for information retrieval and information seeking; or surveys of existing work that propose a significant synthesis. The information retrieval scope of ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) appeals to industry practitioners for its wealth of creative ideas, and to academic researchers for its descriptions of their colleagues'' work.
期刊最新文献
ROGER: Ranking-oriented Generative Retrieval Adversarial Item Promotion on Visually-Aware Recommender Systems by Guided Diffusion Bridging Dense and Sparse Maximum Inner Product Search MvStHgL: Multi-view Hypergraph Learning with Spatial-temporal Periodic Interests for Next POI Recommendation City Matters! A Dual-Target Cross-City Sequential POI Recommendation Model
×
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