Abstract:Fairness measurement is crucial for assessing algorithmic bias in various types of machine learning (ML) models, including ones used for search relevance, recommendation, personalization, talent analytics, and natural language processing. However, the fairness measurement paradigm is currently dominated by fairness metrics that examine disparities in allocation and/or prediction error as univariate key performance indicators (KPIs) for a protected attribute or group. Although important and effective in assessing ML bias in certain contexts such as recidivism, existing metrics don’t work well in many real-world applications of ML characterized by imperfect models applied to an array of instances encompassing a multivariate mixture of protected attributes, that are part of a broader process pipeline. Consequently, the upstream representational harm quantified by existing metrics based on how the model represents protected groups doesn’t necessarily relate to allocational harm in the application of such models in downstream policy/decision contexts. We propose FAIR-Frame, a model-based framework for parsimoniously modeling fairness across multiple protected attributes in regard to the representational and allocational harm associated with the upstream design/development and downstream usage of ML models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed framework on two testbeds pertaining to text classification using pretrained language models. The upstream testbeds encompass over fifty thousand documents associated with twenty-eight thousand users, seven protected attributes and five different classification tasks. The downstream testbeds span three policy outcomes and over 5.41 million total observations. Results in comparison with several existing metrics show that the upstream representational harm measures produced by FAIR-Frame and other metrics are significantly different from one another, and that FAIR-Frame’s representational fairness measures have the highest percentage alignment and lowest error with allocational harm observed in downstream applications. Our findings have important implications for various ML contexts, including information retrieval, user modeling, digital platforms, and text classification, where responsible and trustworthy AI are becoming an imperative.

The Sharpe predictor for fairness in machine learning

Metrizing Fairness

Predicting Fairness of ML Software Configurations

Fair When Trained, Unfair When Deployed: Observable Fairness Measures are Unstable in Performative Prediction Settings

Fairness Measures of Machine Learning Models in Judicial Penalty Prediction

Superhuman Fairness

Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action via Counterfactual Predictions

fairml: A Statistician's Take on Fair Machine Learning Modelling

Does Machine Bring in Extra Bias in Learning? Approximating Fairness in Models Promptly

Understanding Fairness Surrogate Functions in Algorithmic Fairness

The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning

Fairness Through Equality of Effort

A novel approach for assessing fairness in deployed machine learning algorithms

Towards Fair Machine Learning Software: Understanding and Addressing Model Bias Through Counterfactual Thinking

Fairness in Machine Learning with Tractable Models

AdaFair: Cumulative Fairness Adaptive Boosting

Should Fairness be a Metric or a Model? A Model-based Framework for Assessing Bias in Machine Learning Pipelines

Towards A Holistic View of Bias in Machine Learning: Bridging Algorithmic Fairness and Imbalanced Learning

Fairness for Deep Learning Predictions Using Bias Parity Score Based Loss Function Regularization

Counterfactual Fairness by Combining Factual and Counterfactual Predictions

Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law