REVIEW 2 cited by
Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Multiple fairness constraints have been proposed in the literature, motivated by a range of concerns about how demographic groups might be treated unfairly by machine learning classifiers. In this work we consider a different motivation; learning from biased training data. We posit several ways in which training data may be biased, including having a more noisy or negatively biased labeling process on members of a disadvantaged group, or a decreased prevalence of positive or negative examples from the disadvantaged group, or both. Given such biased training data, Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may produce a classifier that not only is biased but also has suboptimal accuracy on the true data distribution. We examine the ability of fairness-constrained ERM to correct this problem. In particular, we find that the Equal Opportunity fairness constraint (Hardt, Price, and Srebro 2016) combined with ERM will provably recover the Bayes Optimal Classifier under a range of bias models. We also consider other recovery methods including reweighting the training data, Equalized Odds, and Demographic Parity. These theoretical results provide additional motivation for considering fairness interventions even if an actor cares primarily about accuracy.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
CaTE Data Curation for Trustworthy AI
A synthesis of data curation practices for trustworthy AI, framed around an actionable definition of trustworthiness and a decision tree.
-
Algorithmic Approaches to Sequential Decision-Making and Social Epistemology
For improving multi-armed bandits, randomized algorithms achieve a near-tight Θ~(√k) worst-case competitive ratio, and polynomially many historical instances suffice to tune a curvature parameter; pessimism traps and ...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.