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.

Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures

Perceptual Fidelity Aware Mean Squared Error

Understanding the Method of Interval Errors from the Information Theory Perspective

Rethinking Mean Square Error: Why Information is a Superior Assessment of Estimators

Image similarity/distance measures: what is really behind MSE and SSIM?

A fuzzy metric for image quality assessment

Signal Quality Auditing for Time-series Data

Fixed-Point Minimum Error Entropy With Fiducial Points

The Many-to-Many Mapping Between the Concordance Correlation Coefficient and the Mean Square Error

A Signal Quality Assessment Metrics for Vibration-based Human Sensing Data Acquisition.

Performance Limits with Additive Error Metrics in Noisy Multi-Measurement Vector Problem

Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE): when to use them or not

Navigating the Metrics Maze: Reconciling Score Magnitudes and Accuracies

Fixed-Point Minimum Error Entropy with Sparsity Penalty Constraints

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

Enhanced-alignment Measure for Binary Foreground Map Evaluation

Rank-Preference Consistency as the Appropriate Metric for Recommender Systems

Gini Indices II and III: Two New Sparsity Measures and Their Applications to Machine Condition Monitoring

The PESQetarian: On the Relevance of Goodhart's Law for Speech Enhancement

Refined multiscale fuzzy entropy based on standard deviation for biomedical signal analysis

On intrusive speech quality measures and a global SNR based metric