REVIEW 1 cited by
Arbitrariness Lies Beyond the Fairness-Accuracy Frontier
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Machine learning tasks may admit multiple competing models that achieve similar performance yet produce conflicting outputs for individual samples -- a phenomenon known as predictive multiplicity. We demonstrate that fairness interventions in machine learning optimized solely for group fairness and accuracy can exacerbate predictive multiplicity. Consequently, state-of-the-art fairness interventions can mask high predictive multiplicity behind favorable group fairness and accuracy metrics. We argue that a third axis of ``arbitrariness'' should be considered when deploying models to aid decision-making in applications of individual-level impact. To address this challenge, we propose an ensemble algorithm applicable to any fairness intervention that provably ensures more consistent predictions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Robust Ambiguity Detection (RAD) From Model- and Feature-Space Consistency
RAD defines a robust-ambiguity score-pair, model-space and feature-space consistency, that flags and diagnoses unreliable predictions before deployment.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.