论文标题

AI(Luskin)公平性的透明工具

Transparency Tools for Fairness in AI (Luskin)

论文作者

Chen, Mingliang, Shahverdi, Aria, Anderson, Sarah, Park, Se Yong, Zhang, Justin, Dachman-Soled, Dana, Lauter, Kristin, Wu, Min

论文摘要

我们为评估和纠正AI算法的公平性和偏见时,为决策者提供了新的工具。这三个工具是: - 关于保护特征和过滤器的选择,公平的新定义称为“控制公平”。该定义对算法相对于数据集的公平性提供了简单的测试。在公平性优先于准确性的情况下,例如在没有“地面真相”数据的情况下,只有在过去的决策中标记(可能是有偏见)的情况,这种公平概念适合于公平性。 - 针对特征和过滤器的选择,用于重新训练给定分类器以实现“受控公平”的算法。提出,实施和测试两种算法。这些算法需要在两个阶段进行培训两个不同的模型。我们在第一阶段和第二阶段尝试了各种模型的组合,并报告哪些组合在公平和准确性方面表现最佳。 - 调整模型参数以达到公平概念的算法,称为“分类奇偶校验”。在精确度优先级的情况下,这种公平概念适合。提出了两种算法,一种假定在测试过程中可以访问模型的受保护特征,一种假设在测试过程中无法访问受保护特征。 我们在三个不同的公开数据集上评估了我们的工具。我们发现这些工具对于理解偏差的各个方面很有用,并且在实践中,在对新数据进行测试时,算法可有效地减少给定的观察到的偏差。

We propose new tools for policy-makers to use when assessing and correcting fairness and bias in AI algorithms. The three tools are: - A new definition of fairness called "controlled fairness" with respect to choices of protected features and filters. The definition provides a simple test of fairness of an algorithm with respect to a dataset. This notion of fairness is suitable in cases where fairness is prioritized over accuracy, such as in cases where there is no "ground truth" data, only data labeled with past decisions (which may have been biased). - Algorithms for retraining a given classifier to achieve "controlled fairness" with respect to a choice of features and filters. Two algorithms are presented, implemented and tested. These algorithms require training two different models in two stages. We experiment with combinations of various types of models for the first and second stage and report on which combinations perform best in terms of fairness and accuracy. - Algorithms for adjusting model parameters to achieve a notion of fairness called "classification parity". This notion of fairness is suitable in cases where accuracy is prioritized. Two algorithms are presented, one which assumes that protected features are accessible to the model during testing, and one which assumes protected features are not accessible during testing. We evaluate our tools on three different publicly available datasets. We find that the tools are useful for understanding various dimensions of bias, and that in practice the algorithms are effective in starkly reducing a given observed bias when tested on new data.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源