Fairness through Aleatoric Uncertainty
We propose a simple yet effective solution to tackle the often-competing goals of fairness and utility in classification tasks. While fairness ensures that the model's predictions are unbiased and do not discriminate against any particular group or individual, utility focuses on maximizing the model's predictive performance. This work introduces the idea of leveraging aleatoric uncertainty (e.g., data ambiguity) to improve the fairness-utility trade-off. Our central hypothesis is that aleatoric uncertainty is a key factor for algorithmic fairness and samples with low aleatoric uncertainty are modeled more accurately and fairly than those with high aleatoric uncertainty. We then propose a principled model to improve fairness when aleatoric uncertainty is high and improve utility elsewhere. Our approach first intervenes in the data distribution to better decouple aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. It then introduces a fairness-utility bi-objective loss defined based on the estimated aleatoric uncertainty. Our approach is theoretically guaranteed to improve the fairness-utility trade-off. Experimental results on both tabular and image datasets show that the proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods w.r.t. the fairness-utility trade-off and w.r.t. both group and individual fairness metrics. This work presents a fresh perspective on the trade-off between utility and algorithmic fairness and opens a key avenue for the potential of using prediction uncertainty in fair machine learning.
Code (1)
Tasks
FairnessSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Achieving Distributive Justice in Federated Learning via Uncertainty Quantification
Client-level fairness metrics for federated learning are used to ensure that all clients in a federation either: a) have similar final performance on their local data distributions (i.e., client parity), or b) obtain fin…
EthicsFairnessFederated LearningGeneralization Bounds+1Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures
Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been…
FairnessAleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions
Machine learning (ML) models can underperform on certain population groups due to choices made during model development and bias inherent in the data. We categorize sources of discrimination in the ML pipeline into two c…
FairnessMissing ValuesCredal Concept Bottleneck Models for Epistemic-Aleatoric Uncertainty Decomposition
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) predict through human-interpretable concepts, but they typically output point concept probabilities that conflate epistemic uncertainty (reducible model underspecification) with aleatoric…
Accounting 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 MakingFairnessmodel