Amanda Bower

Kristian Lum, Yunfeng Zhang, Amanda Bower

When a model's performance differs across socially or culturally relevant groups--like race, gender, or the intersections of many such groups--it is often called "biased." While much of the work in algorithmic fairness over the last several years has focused on developing various definitions of model fairness (the absence of group-wise model performance disparities) and eliminating such "bias," much less work has gone into rigorously measuring it. In practice, it important to have high quality, human digestible measures of model performance disparities and associated uncertainty quantification about them that can serve as inputs into multi-faceted decision-making processes. In this paper, we show both mathematically and through simulation that many of the metrics used to measure group-wise model performance disparities are themselves statistically biased estimators of the underlying quantities they purport to represent. We argue that this can cause misleading conclusions about the relative group-wise model performance disparities along different dimensions, especially in cases where some sensitive variables consist of categories with few members. We propose the "double-corrected" variance estimator, which provides unbiased estimates and uncertainty quantification of the variance of model performance across groups. It is conceptually simple and easily implementable without statistical software package or numerical optimization. We demonstrate the utility of this approach through simulation and show on a real dataset that while statistically biased estimators of group-wise model performance disparities indicate statistically significant differences, when accounting for statistical bias in the estimator, the estimated between-group disparities are no longer statistically significant.

Tomo Lazovich, Luca Belli, Aaron Gonzales et al.

The harmful impacts of algorithmic decision systems have recently come into focus, with many examples of systems such as machine learning (ML) models amplifying existing societal biases. Most metrics attempting to quantify disparities resulting from ML algorithms focus on differences between groups, dividing users based on demographic identities and comparing model performance or overall outcomes between these groups. However, in industry settings, such information is often not available, and inferring these characteristics carries its own risks and biases. Moreover, typical metrics that focus on a single classifier's output ignore the complex network of systems that produce outcomes in real-world settings. In this paper, we evaluate a set of metrics originating from economics, distributional inequality metrics, and their ability to measure disparities in content exposure in a production recommendation system, the Twitter algorithmic timeline. We define desirable criteria for metrics to be used in an operational setting, specifically by ML practitioners. We characterize different types of engagement with content on Twitter using these metrics, and use these results to evaluate the metrics with respect to the desired criteria. We show that we can use these metrics to identify content suggestion algorithms that contribute more strongly to skewed outcomes between users. Overall, we conclude that these metrics can be useful tools for understanding disparate outcomes in online social networks.

Amanda Bower, Hamid Eftekhari, Mikhail Yurochkin et al.

We develop an algorithm to train individually fair learning-to-rank (LTR) models. The proposed approach ensures items from minority groups appear alongside similar items from majority groups. This notion of fair ranking is based on the definition of individual fairness from supervised learning and is more nuanced than prior fair LTR approaches that simply ensure the ranking model provides underrepresented items with a basic level of exposure. The crux of our method is an optimal transport-based regularizer that enforces individual fairness and an efficient algorithm for optimizing the regularizer. We show that our approach leads to certifiably individually fair LTR models and demonstrate the efficacy of our method on ranking tasks subject to demographic biases.

Amanda Bower, Laura Balzano

We consider the problem of estimating a ranking on a set of items from noisy pairwise comparisons given item features. We address the fact that pairwise comparison data often reflects irrational choice, e.g. intransitivity. Our key observation is that two items compared in isolation from other items may be compared based on only a salient subset of features. Formalizing this framework, we propose the salient feature preference model and prove a finite sample complexity result for learning the parameters of our model and the underlying ranking with maximum likelihood estimation. We also provide empirical results that support our theoretical bounds and illustrate how our model explains systematic intransitivity. Finally we demonstrate strong performance of maximum likelihood estimation of our model on both synthetic data and two real data sets: the UT Zappos50K data set and comparison data about the compactness of legislative districts in the US.

Mikhail Yurochkin, Amanda Bower, Yuekai Sun

We consider training machine learning models that are fair in the sense that their performance is invariant under certain sensitive perturbations to the inputs. For example, the performance of a resume screening system should be invariant under changes to the gender and/or ethnicity of the applicant. We formalize this notion of algorithmic fairness as a variant of individual fairness and develop a distributionally robust optimization approach to enforce it during training. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach on two ML tasks that are susceptible to gender and racial biases.

Amanda Bower, Sarah N. Kitchen, Laura Niss et al.

This work facilitates ensuring fairness of machine learning in the real world by decoupling fairness considerations in compound decisions. In particular, this work studies how fairness propagates through a compound decision-making processes, which we call a pipeline. Prior work in algorithmic fairness only focuses on fairness with respect to one decision. However, many decision-making processes require more than one decision. For instance, hiring is at least a two stage model: deciding who to interview from the applicant pool and then deciding who to hire from the interview pool. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that the composition of fair components may not guarantee a fair pipeline under a $(1+\varepsilon)$-equal opportunity definition of fair. However, we identify circumstances that do provide that guarantee. We also propose numerous directions for future work on more general compound machine learning decisions.