Falaah Arif Khan

Falaah Arif Khan, Eleni Manis, Julia Stoyanovich

In this work we use Equal Oppportunity (EO) doctrines from political philosophy to make explicit the normative judgements embedded in different conceptions of algorithmic fairness. We contrast formal EO approaches that narrowly focus on fair contests at discrete decision points, with substantive EO doctrines that look at people's fair life chances more holistically over the course of a lifetime. We use this taxonomy to provide a moral interpretation of the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different conceptions of a fair contest -- foward-looking versus backward-looking -- when people do not have fair life chances. We use this result to motivate substantive conceptions of algorithmic fairness and outline two plausible procedures based on the luck-egalitarian doctrine of EO, and Rawls's principle of fair equality of opportunity.

Falaah Arif Khan, Julia Stoyanovich

In this paper we revisit the bias-variance decomposition of model error from the perspective of designing a fair classifier: we are motivated by the widely held socio-technical belief that noise variance in large datasets in social domains tracks demographic characteristics such as gender, race, disability, etc. We propose a conditional-iid (ciid) model built from group-specific classifiers that seeks to improve on the trade-offs made by a single model (iid setting). We theoretically analyze the bias-variance decomposition of different models in the Gaussian Mixture Model, and then empirically test our setup on the COMPAS and folktables datasets. We instantiate the ciid model with two procedures that improve "fairness" by conditioning out undesirable effects: first, by conditioning directly on sensitive attributes, and second, by clustering samples into groups and conditioning on cluster membership (blind to protected group membership). Our analysis suggests that there might be principled procedures and concrete real-world use cases under which conditional models are preferred, and our striking empirical results strongly indicate that non-iid settings, such as the ciid setting proposed here, might be more suitable for big data applications in social contexts.

Falaah Arif Khan, Denys Herasymuk, Nazar Protsiv et al.

Recent research reveals that machine learning (ML) models are highly sensitive to minor changes in their training procedure, such as the inclusion or exclusion of a single data point, leading to conflicting predictions on individual data points; a property termed as arbitrariness or instability in ML pipelines in prior work. Drawing from the uncertainty literature, we show that stability decomposes into epistemic and aleatoric components, capturing the consistency and confidence in prediction, respectively. We use this decomposition to provide two main contributions. Our first contribution is an extensive empirical evaluation. We find that (i) epistemic instability can be reduced with more training data whereas aleatoric instability cannot; (ii) state-of-the-art ML models have aleatoric instability as high as 79% and aleatoric instability disparities among demographic groups as high as 29% in popular fairness benchmarks; and (iii) fairness pre-processing interventions generally increase aleatoric instability more than in-processing interventions, and both epistemic and aleatoric instability are highly sensitive to data-processing interventions and model architecture. Our second contribution is a practical solution to the problem of systematic arbitrariness. We propose a model selection procedure that includes epistemic and aleatoric criteria alongside existing accuracy and fairness criteria, and show that it successfully narrows down a large set of good models (50-100 on our datasets) to a handful of stable, fair and accurate ones. We built and publicly released a python library to measure epistemic and aleatoric multiplicity in any ML pipeline alongside existing confusion-matrix-based metrics, providing practitioners with a rich suite of evaluation metrics to use to define a more precise criterion during model selection.

Falaah Arif Khan, Denys Herasymuk, Nazar Protsiv et al.

Data missingness is a practical challenge of sustained interest to the scientific community. In this paper, we present Shades-of-Null, an evaluation suite for responsible missing value imputation. Our work is novel in two ways (i) we model realistic and socially-salient missingness scenarios that go beyond Rubin's classic Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing At Random (MAR) and Missing Not At Random (MNAR) settings, to include multi-mechanism missingness (when different missingness patterns co-exist in the data) and missingness shift (when the missingness mechanism changes between training and test) (ii) we evaluate imputers holistically, based on imputation quality and imputation fairness, as well as on the predictive performance, fairness and stability of the models that are trained and tested on the data post-imputation. We use Shades-of-Null to conduct a large-scale empirical study involving 29,736 experimental pipelines, and find that while there is no single best-performing imputation approach for all missingness types, interesting trade-offs arise between predictive performance, fairness and stability, based on the combination of missingness scenario, imputer choice, and the architecture of the predictive model. We make Shades-of-Null publicly available, to enable researchers to rigorously evaluate missing value imputation methods on a wide range of metrics in plausible and socially meaningful scenarios.

Yinong Oliver Wang, Nivedha Sivakumar, Falaah Arif Khan et al.

The recent rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) highlights the critical need for benchmarking their fairness. Conventional fairness metrics, which focus on discrete accuracy-based evaluations (i.e., prediction correctness), fail to capture the implicit impact of model uncertainty (e.g., higher model confidence about one group over another despite similar accuracy). To address this limitation, we propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness that is more reflective of the internal bias in model decisions compared to conventional fairness measures. Furthermore, observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset with 31,756 samples for co-reference resolution, offering a more diverse and suitable dataset for evaluating modern LLMs. We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source LLMs. For example, Mistral-7B exhibits suboptimal fairness due to high confidence in incorrect predictions, a detail overlooked by Equalized Odds but captured by UCerF. Overall, our proposed LLM benchmark, which evaluates fairness with uncertainty awareness, paves the way for developing more transparent and accountable AI systems.

Falaah Arif Khan, Nivedha Sivakumar, Yinong Oliver Wang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance, leading to their widespread adoption as decision-support tools in resource-constrained contexts like hiring and admissions. There is, however, scientific consensus that AI systems can reflect and exacerbate societal biases, raising concerns about identity-based harm when used in critical social contexts. Prior work has laid a solid foundation for assessing bias in LLMs by evaluating demographic disparities in different language reasoning tasks. In this work, we extend single-axis fairness evaluations to examine intersectional bias, recognizing that when multiple axes of discrimination intersect, they create distinct patterns of disadvantage. We create a new benchmark called WinoIdentity by augmenting the WinoBias dataset with 25 demographic markers across 10 attributes, including age, nationality, and race, intersected with binary gender, yielding 245,700 prompts to evaluate 50 distinct bias patterns. Focusing on harms of omission due to underrepresentation, we investigate bias through the lens of uncertainty and propose a group (un)fairness metric called Coreference Confidence Disparity which measures whether models are more or less confident for some intersectional identities than others. We evaluate five recently published LLMs and find confidence disparities as high as 40% along various demographic attributes including body type, sexual orientation and socio-economic status, with models being most uncertain about doubly-disadvantaged identities in anti-stereotypical settings. Surprisingly, coreference confidence decreases even for hegemonic or privileged markers, indicating that the recent impressive performance of LLMs is more likely due to memorization than logical reasoning. Notably, these are two independent failures in value alignment and validity that can compound to cause social harm.

Falaah Arif Khan, Eleni Manis, Julia Stoyanovich

Recent interest in codifying fairness in Automated Decision Systems (ADS) has resulted in a wide range of formulations of what it means for an algorithmic system to be fair. Most of these propositions are inspired by, but inadequately grounded in, political philosophy scholarship. This paper aims to correct that deficit. We introduce a taxonomy of fairness ideals using doctrines of Equality of Opportunity (EOP) from political philosophy, clarifying their conceptions in philosophy and the proposed codification in fair machine learning. We arrange these fairness ideals onto an EOP spectrum, which serves as a useful frame to guide the design of a fair ADS in a given context. We use our fairness-as-EOP framework to re-interpret the impossibility results from a philosophical perspective, as the in-compatibility between different value systems, and demonstrate the utility of the framework with several real-world and hypothetical examples. Through our EOP-framework we hope to answer what it means for an ADS to be fair from a moral and political philosophy standpoint, and to pave the way for similar scholarship from ethics and legal experts.

Abhishek Gupta, Alexandrine Royer, Connor Wright et al.

The 3rd edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in AI Ethics since October 2020. It aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the field's ever-changing developments. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, including: algorithmic injustice, discrimination, ethical AI, labor impacts, misinformation, privacy, risk and security, social media, and more. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. Unique to this report is "The Abuse and Misogynoir Playbook," written by Dr. Katlyn Tuner (Research Scientist, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT), Dr. Danielle Wood (Assistant Professor, Program in Media Arts and Sciences; Assistant Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics; Lead, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT) and Dr. Catherine D'Ignazio (Assistant Professor, Urban Science and Planning; Director, Data + Feminism Lab, MIT). The piece (and accompanying infographic), is a deep-dive into the historical and systematic silencing, erasure, and revision of Black women's contributions to knowledge and scholarship in the United Stations, and globally. Exposing and countering this Playbook has become increasingly important following the firing of AI Ethics expert Dr. Timnit Gebru (and several of her supporters) at Google. This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.

Abhishek Gupta, Alexandrine Royer, Victoria Heath et al.

The 2nd edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in the field of AI Ethics since July 2020. This report aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the ever-changing developments in the field. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, including: AI and society, bias and algorithmic justice, disinformation, humans and AI, labor impacts, privacy, risk, and future of AI ethics. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. These experts include: Danit Gal (Tech Advisor, United Nations), Amba Kak (Director of Global Policy and Programs, NYU's AI Now Institute), Rumman Chowdhury (Global Lead for Responsible AI, Accenture), Brent Barron (Director of Strategic Projects and Knowledge Management, CIFAR), Adam Murray (U.S. Diplomat working on tech policy, Chair of the OECD Network on AI), Thomas Kochan (Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management), and Katya Klinova (AI and Economy Program Lead, Partnership on AI). This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.