Unravelling the (In)compatibility of Statistical-Parity and Equalized-Odds
A key challenge in employing data, algorithms and data-driven systems is to adhere to the principle of fairness and justice. Statistical fairness measures belong to an important category of technical/formal mechanisms for detecting fairness issues in data and algorithms. In this contribution we study the relations between two types of statistical fairness measures namely Statistical-Parity and Equalized-Odds. The Statistical-Parity measure does not rely on having ground truth, i.e., (objectively) labeled target attributes. This makes Statistical-Parity a suitable measure in practice for assessing fairness in data and data classification algorithms. Therefore, Statistical-Parity is adopted in many legal and professional frameworks for assessing algorithmic fairness. The Equalized-Odds measure, on the contrary, relies on having (reliable) ground-truth, which is not always feasible in practice. Nevertheless, there are several situations where the Equalized-Odds definition should be satisfied to enforce false prediction parity among sensitive social groups. We present a novel analyze of the relation between Statistical-Parity and Equalized-Odds, depending on the base-rates of sensitive groups. The analysis intuitively shows how and when base-rate imbalance causes incompatibility between Statistical-Parity and Equalized-Odds measures. As such, our approach provides insight in (how to make design) trade-offs between these measures in practice. Further, based on our results, we plea for examining base-rate (im)balance and investigating the possibility of such an incompatibility before enforcing or relying on the Statistical-Parity criterion. The insights provided, we foresee, may trigger initiatives to improve or adjust the current practice and/or the existing legal frameworks.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Paradoxes in Fair Machine Learning
Equalized odds is a statistical notion of fairness in machine learning that ensures that classification algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups. We extend equalized odds to the setting of cardinality-cons…
BIG-bench Machine LearningFairnessGeneral ClassificationMachine Learning Techniques with Fairness for Prediction of Completion of Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
The aim of this study is to look at predicting whether a person will complete a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and the number of times a person attends. The study is based on demographic data obtained from Subst…
FairnessImputationToward Mitigating Sex Bias in Pilot Trainees' Stress and Fatigue Modeling
While researchers have been trying to understand the stress and fatigue among pilots, especially pilot trainees, and to develop stress/fatigue models to automate the process of detecting stress/fatigue, they often do not…
Avoiding Disparity Amplification under Different Worldviews
We mathematically compare four competing definitions of group-level nondiscrimination: demographic parity, equalized odds, predictive parity, and calibration. Using the theoretical framework of Friedler et al., we study …
FairnessIntrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
With the growing adoption of machine learning (ML) systems in areas like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it is increasingly critical to guarantee the fairness of decisions assisted by …
Fairness