Be Intentional About Fairness!: Fairness, Size, and Multiplicity in the Rashomon Set
When selecting a model from a set of equally performant models, how much unfairness can you really reduce? Is it important to be intentional about fairness when choosing among this set, or is arbitrarily choosing among the set of ''good'' models good enough? Recent work has highlighted that the phenomenon of model multiplicity-where multiple models with nearly identical predictive accuracy exist for the same task-has both positive and negative implications for fairness, from strengthening the enforcement of civil rights law in AI systems to showcasing arbitrariness in AI decision-making. Despite the enormous implications of model multiplicity, there is little work that explores the properties of sets of equally accurate models, or Rashomon sets, in general. In this paper, we present five main theoretical and methodological contributions which help us to understand the relatively unexplored properties of the Rashomon set, in particular with regards to fairness. Our contributions include methods for efficiently sampling models from this set and techniques for identifying the fairest models according to key fairness metrics such as statistical parity. We also derive the probability that an individual's prediction will be flipped within the Rashomon set, as well as expressions for the set's size and the distribution of error tolerance used across models. These results lead to policy-relevant takeaways, such as the importance of intentionally looking for fair models within the Rashomon set, and understanding which individuals or groups may be more susceptible to arbitrary decisions.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
FairnessMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Arbitrariness Lies Beyond the Fairness-Accuracy Frontier
Machine learning tasks may admit multiple competing models that achieve similar performance yet produce conflicting outputs for individual samples -- a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. We demonstrate that fai…
Decision MakingFairnessIndividual Arbitrariness and Group Fairness
Machine learning tasks may admit multiple competing models that achieve similar performance yet produce conflicting outputs for individual samples---a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. We demonstrate that fair…
When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness
Most research on fair machine learning has prioritized optimizing criteria such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Despite these efforts, there remains a limited understanding of how different bias mitigation stra…
FairnessModel SelectionAccounting for Model Uncertainty in Algorithmic Discrimination
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 in…
Decision MakingFairnessmodelExacerbating Algorithmic Bias through Fairness Attacks
Algorithmic fairness has attracted significant attention in recent years, with many quantitative measures suggested for characterizing the fairness of different machine learning algorithms. Despite this interest, the rob…
Adversarial AttackBIG-bench Machine LearningData PoisoningFairness