Lucius Bynum

Andrew Bell, Lucius Bynum, Nazarii Drushchak et al.

The ``impossibility theorem'' -- which is considered foundational in algorithmic fairness literature -- asserts that there must be trade-offs between common notions of fairness and performance when fitting statistical models, except in two special cases: when the prevalence of the outcome being predicted is equal across groups, or when a perfectly accurate predictor is used. However, theory does not always translate to practice. In this work, we challenge the implications of the impossibility theorem in practical settings. First, we show analytically that, by slightly relaxing the impossibility theorem (to accommodate a \textit{practitioner's} perspective of fairness), it becomes possible to identify a large set of models that satisfy seemingly incompatible fairness constraints. Second, we demonstrate the existence of these models through extensive experiments on five real-world datasets. We conclude by offering tools and guidance for practitioners to understand when -- and to what degree -- fairness along multiple criteria can be achieved. For example, if one allows only a small margin-of-error between metrics, there exists a large set of models simultaneously satisfying \emph{False Negative Rate Parity}, \emph{False Positive Rate Parity}, and \emph{Positive Predictive Value Parity}, even when there is a moderate prevalence difference between groups. This work has an important implication for the community: achieving fairness along multiple metrics for multiple groups (and their intersections) is much more possible than was previously believed.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled -- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables, namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals -- a 'forward-looking' rather than 'retrospective' counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results.

Joshua R. Loftus, Lucius E. J. Bynum, Sakina Hansen

Explaining artificial intelligence or machine learning models is increasingly important. To use such data-driven systems wisely we must understand how they interact with the world, including how they depend causally on data inputs. In this work we develop Causal Dependence Plots (CDPs) to visualize how one variable--an outcome--depends on changes in another variable--a predictor--$\textit{along with any consequent causal changes in other predictor variables}$. Crucially, CDPs differ from standard methods based on holding other predictors constant or assuming they are independent. CDPs make use of an auxiliary causal model because causal conclusions require causal assumptions. With simulations and real data experiments, we show CDPs can be combined in a modular way with methods for causal learning or sensitivity analysis. Since people often think causally about input-output dependence, CDPs can be powerful tools in the xAI or interpretable machine learning toolkit and contribute to applications like scientific machine learning and algorithmic fairness.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Kyunghyun Cho

In this work, we present sequence-driven structural causal models (SD-SCMs), a framework for specifying causal models with user-defined structure and language-model-defined mechanisms. We characterize how an SD-SCM enables sampling from observational, interventional, and counterfactual distributions according to the desired causal structure. We then leverage this procedure to propose a new type of benchmark for causal inference methods, generating individual-level counterfactual data to test treatment effect estimation. We create an example benchmark consisting of thousands of datasets, and test a suite of popular estimation methods for average, conditional average, and individual treatment effect estimation. We find under this benchmark that (1) causal methods outperform non-causal methods and that (2) even state-of-the-art methods struggle with individualized effect estimation, suggesting this benchmark captures some inherent difficulties in causal estimation. Apart from generating data, this same technique can underpin the auditing of language models for (un)desirable causal effects, such as misinformation or discrimination. We believe SD-SCMs can serve as a useful tool in any application that would benefit from sequential data with controllable causal structure.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

Counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning underpin numerous techniques for auditing and understanding artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The traditional paradigm for counterfactual reasoning in this literature is the interventional counterfactual, where hypothetical interventions are imagined and simulated. For this reason, the starting point for causal reasoning about legal protections and demographic data in AI is an imagined intervention on a legally-protected characteristic, such as ethnicity, race, gender, disability, age, etc. We ask, for example, what would have happened had your race been different? An inherent limitation of this paradigm is that some demographic interventions -- like interventions on race -- may not translate into the formalisms of interventional counterfactuals. In this work, we explore a new paradigm based instead on the backtracking counterfactual, where rather than imagine hypothetical interventions on legally-protected characteristics, we imagine alternate initial conditions while holding these characteristics fixed. We ask instead, what would explain a counterfactual outcome for you as you actually are or could be? This alternate framework allows us to address many of the same social concerns, but to do so while asking fundamentally different questions that do not rely on demographic interventions.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

A significant body of research in the data sciences considers unfair discrimination against social categories such as race or gender that could occur or be amplified as a result of algorithmic decisions. Simultaneously, real-world disparities continue to exist, even before algorithmic decisions are made. In this work, we draw on insights from the social sciences brought into the realm of causal modeling and constrained optimization, and develop a novel algorithmic framework for tackling pre-existing real-world disparities. The purpose of our framework, which we call the "impact remediation framework," is to measure real-world disparities and discover the optimal intervention policies that could help improve equity or access to opportunity for those who are underserved with respect to an outcome of interest. We develop a disaggregated approach to tackling pre-existing disparities that relaxes the typical set of assumptions required for the use of social categories in structural causal models. Our approach flexibly incorporates counterfactuals and is compatible with various ontological assumptions about the nature of social categories. We demonstrate impact remediation with a hypothetical case study and compare our disaggregated approach to an existing state-of-the-art approach, comparing its structure and resulting policy recommendations. In contrast to most work on optimal policy learning, we explore disparity reduction itself as an objective, explicitly focusing the power of algorithms on reducing inequality.

Sarah Tymochko, Zachary New, Lucius Bynum et al.

Advances in natural language processing have resulted in increased capabilities with respect to multiple tasks. One of the possible causes of the observed performance gains is the introduction of increasingly sophisticated text representations. While many of the new word embedding techniques can be shown to capture particular notions of sentiment or associative structures, we explore the ability of two different word embeddings to uncover or capture the notion of logical shape in text. To this end we present a novel framework that we call Topological Word Embeddings which leverages mathematical techniques in dynamical system analysis and data driven shape extraction (i.e. topological data analysis). In this preliminary work we show that using a topological delay embedding we are able to capture and extract a different, shape-based notion of logic aimed at answering the question "Can we find a circle in a circular argument?"