Automating Fairness Configurations for Machine Learning

Recent years have witnessed substantial efforts devoted to ensuring algorithmic fairness for machine learning (ML), spanning from formalizing fairness metrics to designing fairness-enhancing methods. These efforts lead to numerous possible choices in terms of fairness definitions and fairness-enhancing algorithms. However, finding the best fairness configuration (including both fairness definition and fairness-enhancing algorithms) for a specific ML task is extremely challenging in practice. The large design space of fairness configurations combined with the tremendous cost required for fairness deployment poses a major obstacle to this endeavor. This raises an important issue: can we enable automated fairness configurations for a new ML task on a potentially unseen dataset? To this point, we design Auto-Fair, a system that provides recommendations of fairness configurations by ranking all fairness configuration candidates based on their evaluations on prior ML tasks. At the core of Auto-Fair lies a meta-learning model that ranks all fairness configuration candidates by utilizing: (1) a set of meta-features that are derived from both datasets and fairness configurations that were used in prior evaluations; and (2) the knowledge accumulated from previous evaluations of fairness configurations on related ML tasks and datasets. The experimental results on 350 different fairness configurations and 1,500 data samples demonstrate the effectiveness of Auto-Fair.

[1]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning , 2019, ACM Comput. Surv..

[2]  Joaquin Vanschoren,et al.  Meta-Learning: A Survey , 2018, Automated Machine Learning.

[3]  Maya R. Gupta,et al.  Satisfying Real-world Goals with Dataset Constraints , 2016, NIPS.

[4]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual &Group Unfairness via Inequality Indices , 2018, KDD.

[5]  Peter L. Bartlett,et al.  RL$^2$: Fast Reinforcement Learning via Slow Reinforcement Learning , 2016, ArXiv.

[6]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[7]  G. Evans,et al.  Learning to Optimize , 2008 .

[8]  Toon Calders,et al.  Classifying without discriminating , 2009, 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication.

[9]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Learning a synaptic learning rule , 1991, IJCNN-91-Seattle International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[10]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Fairness through awareness , 2011, ITCS '12.

[11]  Zeb Kurth-Nelson,et al.  Learning to reinforcement learn , 2016, CogSci.

[12]  Toon Calders,et al.  Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification , 2010, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[13]  Xiangliang Zhang,et al.  Decision Theory for Discrimination-Aware Classification , 2012, 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining.

[14]  Toon Calders,et al.  Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination , 2011, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[15]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  On Fairness and Calibration , 2017, NIPS.

[16]  Toon Calders,et al.  Building Classifiers with Independency Constraints , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops.

[17]  D. Hunter MM algorithms for generalized Bradley-Terry models , 2003 .

[18]  Marcin Andrychowicz,et al.  Learning to learn by gradient descent by gradient descent , 2016, NIPS.

[19]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information , 2009, Neural Networks.

[20]  Kush R. Varshney,et al.  Optimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention , 2017, NIPS.

[21]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Mathematics without Numbers , 1993 .

[22]  Novi Quadrianto,et al.  Recycling Privileged Learning and Distribution Matching for Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[23]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment , 2016, WWW.

[24]  M. Kendall A NEW MEASURE OF RANK CORRELATION , 1938 .

[25]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  The Case for Process Fairness in Learning: Feature Selection for Fair Decision Making , 2016 .

[26]  Tony Doyle,et al.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Inf. Soc..

[27]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , 2016, NIPS.

[28]  Dan A. Biddle Adverse Impact and Test Validation: A Practitioner's Guide to Valid and Defensible Employment Testing , 2005 .

[29]  Jun Sakuma,et al.  Fairness-Aware Classifier with Prejudice Remover Regularizer , 2012, ECML/PKDD.

[30]  Matt J. Kusner,et al.  Counterfactual Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[31]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to "Machine Bias: There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. and It's Biased against Blacks" , 2016 .

[32]  Jun Sakuma,et al.  Fairness-aware Learning through Regularization Approach , 2011, 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops.

[33]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Learning to Control Fast-Weight Memories: An Alternative to Dynamic Recurrent Networks , 1992, Neural Computation.

[34]  John Langford,et al.  A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification , 2018, ICML.

[35]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Learning Fair Representations , 2013, ICML.

[36]  Blake Lemoine,et al.  Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning , 2018, AIES.

[37]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[38]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Learning Non-Discriminatory Predictors , 2017, COLT.

[39]  Carlos Eduardo Scheidegger,et al.  Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact , 2014, KDD.

[40]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores , 2016, ITCS.