Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Can Active Learning Preemptively Mitigate Fairness Issues?

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

arxiv 2104.06879 v1 pith:LHXSUFEG submitted 2021-04-14 cs.LG cs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.CY
keywords fairnessalgorithmsbaldinteractionlearningactiveaddressingalgorithmic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dataset bias is one of the prevailing causes of unfairness in machine learning. Addressing fairness at the data collection and dataset preparation stages therefore becomes an essential part of training fairer algorithms. In particular, active learning (AL) algorithms show promise for the task by drawing importance to the most informative training samples. However, the effect and interaction between existing AL algorithms and algorithmic fairness remain under-explored. In this paper, we study whether models trained with uncertainty-based AL heuristics such as BALD are fairer in their decisions with respect to a protected class than those trained with identically independently distributed (i.i.d.) sampling. We found a significant improvement on predictive parity when using BALD, while also improving accuracy compared to i.i.d. sampling. We also explore the interaction of algorithmic fairness methods such as gradient reversal (GRAD) and BALD. We found that, while addressing different fairness issues, their interaction further improves the results on most benchmarks and metrics we explored.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools