Bobbie Chern

Melissa Hall, Bobbie Chern, Laura Gustafson et al.

Disaggregated performance metrics across demographic groups are a hallmark of fairness assessments in computer vision. These metrics successfully incentivized performance improvements on person-centric tasks such as face analysis and are used to understand risks of modern models. However, there is a lack of discussion on the vulnerabilities of these measurements for more complex computer vision tasks. In this paper, we consider multi-label image classification and, specifically, object categorization tasks. First, we highlight design choices and trade-offs for measurement that involve more nuance than discussed in prior computer vision literature. These challenges are related to the necessary scale of data, definition of groups for images, choice of metric, and dataset imbalances. Next, through two case studies using modern vision models, we demonstrate that naive implementations of these assessments are brittle. We identify several design choices that look merely like implementation details but significantly impact the conclusions of assessments, both in terms of magnitude and direction (on which group the classifiers work best) of disparities. Based on ablation studies, we propose some recommendations to increase the reliability of these assessments. Finally, through a qualitative analysis we find that concepts with large disparities tend to have varying definitions and representations between groups, with inconsistencies across datasets and annotators. While this result suggests avenues for mitigation through more consistent data collection, it also highlights that ambiguous label definitions remain a challenge when performing model assessments. Vision models are expanding and becoming more ubiquitous; it is even more important that our disparity assessments accurately reflect the true performance of models.

Julius Adebayo, Melissa Hall, Bowen Yu et al.

Errors in labels obtained via human annotation adversely affect a model's performance. Existing approaches propose ways to mitigate the effect of label error on a model's downstream accuracy, yet little is known about its impact on a model's disparity metrics. Here we study the effect of label error on a model's disparity metrics. We empirically characterize how varying levels of label error, in both training and test data, affect these disparity metrics. We find that group calibration and other metrics are sensitive to train-time and test-time label error -- particularly for minority groups. This disparate effect persists even for models trained with noise-aware algorithms. To mitigate the impact of training-time label error, we present an approach to estimate the influence of a training input's label on a model's group disparity metric. We empirically assess the proposed approach on a variety of datasets and find significant improvement, compared to alternative approaches, in identifying training inputs that improve a model's disparity metric. We complement the approach with an automatic relabel-and-finetune scheme that produces updated models with, provably, improved group calibration error.

William Cai, Ro Encarnacion, Bobbie Chern et al.

In domains ranging from computer vision to natural language processing, machine learning models have been shown to exhibit stark disparities, often performing worse for members of traditionally underserved groups. One factor contributing to these performance gaps is a lack of representation in the data the models are trained on. It is often unclear, however, how to operationalize representativeness in specific applications. Here we formalize the problem of creating equitable training datasets, and propose a statistical framework for addressing this problem. We consider a setting where a model builder must decide how to allocate a fixed data collection budget to gather training data from different subgroups. We then frame dataset creation as a constrained optimization problem, in which one maximizes a function of group-specific performance metrics based on (estimated) group-specific learning rates and costs per sample. This flexible approach incorporates preferences of model-builders and other stakeholders, as well as the statistical properties of the learning task. When data collection decisions are made sequentially, we show that under certain conditions this optimization problem can be efficiently solved even without prior knowledge of the learning rates. To illustrate our approach, we conduct a simulation study of polygenic risk scores on synthetic genomic data -- an application domain that often suffers from non-representative data collection. We find that our adaptive sampling strategy outperforms several common data collection heuristics, including equal and proportional sampling, demonstrating the value of strategic dataset design for building equitable models.