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.

Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity

Fairer and more accurate, but for whom?

Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairness

Perceptions of the Fairness Impacts of Multiplicity in Machine Learning

One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions

Fairness in Machine Learning with Tractable Models

Arbitrariness Lies Beyond the Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

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

On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More Than a Fair Prediction Model

A Human-in-the-Loop Fairness-Aware Model Selection Framework for Complex Fairness Objective Landscapes

FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-based Rebalancing of Protected Attributes

Data vs. Model Machine Learning Fairness Testing: An Empirical Study

The Equity Framework: Fairness Beyond Equalized Predictive Outcomes

Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions

Counterfactual Fair Opportunity: Measuring Decision Model Fairness with Counterfactual Reasoning

When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness

Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective

An Empirical Characterization of Fair Machine Learning For Clinical Risk Prediction

Cross-Institutional Transfer Learning for Educational Models: Implications for Model Performance, Fairness, and Equity

Fairness And Performance In Harmony: Data Debiasing Is All You Need

Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?