Pavan Ravishankar

Pavan Ravishankar, Qingyu Mo, Edward McFowland et al.

With an increased focus on incorporating fairness in machine learning models, it becomes imperative not only to assess and mitigate bias at each stage of the machine learning pipeline but also to understand the downstream impacts of bias across stages. Here we consider a general, but realistic, scenario in which a predictive model is learned from (potentially biased) training data, and model predictions are assessed post-hoc for fairness by some auditing method. We provide a theoretical analysis of how a specific form of data bias, differential sampling bias, propagates from the data stage to the prediction stage. Unlike prior work, we evaluate the downstream impacts of data biases quantitatively rather than qualitatively and prove theoretical guarantees for detection. Under reasonable assumptions, we quantify how the amount of bias in the model predictions varies as a function of the amount of differential sampling bias in the data, and at what point this bias becomes provably detectable by the auditor. Through experiments on two criminal justice datasets -- the well-known COMPAS dataset and historical data from NYPD's stop and frisk policy -- we demonstrate that the theoretical results hold in practice even when our assumptions are relaxed.

Gordon Dai, Pavan Ravishankar, Rachel Yuan et al.

When selecting a model from a set of equally performant models, how much unfairness can you really reduce? Is it important to be intentional about fairness when choosing among this set, or is arbitrarily choosing among the set of ''good'' models good enough? Recent work has highlighted that the phenomenon of model multiplicity-where multiple models with nearly identical predictive accuracy exist for the same task-has both positive and negative implications for fairness, from strengthening the enforcement of civil rights law in AI systems to showcasing arbitrariness in AI decision-making. Despite the enormous implications of model multiplicity, there is little work that explores the properties of sets of equally accurate models, or Rashomon sets, in general. In this paper, we present five main theoretical and methodological contributions which help us to understand the relatively unexplored properties of the Rashomon set, in particular with regards to fairness. Our contributions include methods for efficiently sampling models from this set and techniques for identifying the fairest models according to key fairness metrics such as statistical parity. We also derive the probability that an individual's prediction will be flipped within the Rashomon set, as well as expressions for the set's size and the distribution of error tolerance used across models. These results lead to policy-relevant takeaways, such as the importance of intentionally looking for fair models within the Rashomon set, and understanding which individuals or groups may be more susceptible to arbitrary decisions.

Pavan Ravishankar, Rushabh Shah, Daniel B. Neill

We propose a fair machine learning algorithm to model interpretable differences between observed and desired human decision-making, with the latter aimed at reducing disparity in a downstream outcome impacted by the human decision. Prior work learns fair representations without considering the outcome in the decision-making process. We model the outcome disparities as arising due to the different representations of the input seen by the observed and desired decision-maker, which we term representational disparities. Our goal is to learn interpretable representational disparities which could potentially be corrected by specific nudges to the human decision, mitigating disparities in the downstream outcome; we frame this as a multi-objective optimization problem using a neural network. Under reasonable simplifying assumptions, we prove that our neural network model of the representational disparity learns interpretable weights that fully mitigate the outcome disparity. We validate objectives and interpret results using real-world German Credit, Adult, and Heritage Health datasets.

Pavan Ravishankar, Pranshu Malviya, Balaraman Ravindran

In budget-constrained settings aimed at mitigating unfairness, like law enforcement, it is essential to prioritize the sources of unfairness before taking measures to mitigate them in the real world. Unlike previous works, which only serve as a caution against possible discrimination and de-bias data after data generation, this work provides a toolkit to mitigate unfairness during data generation, given by the Unfair Edge Prioritization algorithm, in addition to de-biasing data after generation, given by the Discrimination Removal algorithm. We assume that a non-parametric Markovian causal model representative of the data generation procedure is given. The edges emanating from the sensitive nodes in the causal graph, such as race, are assumed to be the sources of unfairness. We first quantify Edge Flow in any edge X -> Y, which is the belief of observing a specific value of Y due to the influence of a specific value of X along X -> Y. We then quantify Edge Unfairness by formulating a non-parametric model in terms of edge flows. We then prove that cumulative unfairness towards sensitive groups in a decision, like race in a bail decision, is non-existent when edge unfairness is absent. We prove this result for the non-trivial non-parametric model setting when the cumulative unfairness cannot be expressed in terms of edge unfairness. We then measure the Potential to mitigate the Cumulative Unfairness when edge unfairness is decreased. Based on these measurements, we propose the Unfair Edge Prioritization algorithm that can then be used by policymakers. We also propose the Discrimination Removal Procedure that de-biases a data distribution by eliminating optimization constraints that grow exponentially in the number of sensitive attributes and values taken by them. Extensive experiments validate the theorem and specifications used for quantifying the above measures.

Pavan Ravishankar, Pranshu Malviya, Balaraman Ravindran

Law enforcement must prioritize sources of unfairness before mitigating their underlying unfairness, considering that they have limited resources. Unlike previous works that only make cautionary claims of discrimination and de-biases data after its generation, this paper attempts to prioritize unfair sources before mitigating their unfairness in the real-world. We assume that a causal bayesian network, representative of the data generation procedure, along with the sensitive nodes, that result in unfairness, are given. We quantify Edge Flow, which is the belief flowing along an edge by attenuating the indirect path influences, and use it to quantify Edge Unfairness. We prove that cumulative unfairness is non-existent in any decision, like judicial bail, towards any sensitive groups, like race, when the edge unfairness is absent, given an error-free linear model of conditional probability. We then measure the potential to mitigate the cumulative unfairness when edge unfairness is decreased. Based on these measures, we propose an unfair edge prioritization algorithm that prioritizes the unfair edges and a discrimination removal procedure that de-biases the generated data distribution. The experimental section validates the specifications used for quantifying the above measures.