Can I Trust My Fairness Metric? Assessing Fairness with Unlabeled Data and Bayesian Inference

October 19, 2020 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Neural Information Processing Systems

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Disi Ji, Padhraic Smyth, Mark Steyvers arXiv ID 2010.09851 Category stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat) Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.LG Citations 53 Venue Neural Information Processing Systems Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
We investigate the problem of reliably assessing group fairness when labeled examples are few but unlabeled examples are plentiful. We propose a general Bayesian framework that can augment labeled data with unlabeled data to produce more accurate and lower-variance estimates compared to methods based on labeled data alone. Our approach estimates calibrated scores for unlabeled examples in each group using a hierarchical latent variable model conditioned on labeled examples. This in turn allows for inference of posterior distributions with associated notions of uncertainty for a variety of group fairness metrics. We demonstrate that our approach leads to significant and consistent reductions in estimation error across multiple well-known fairness datasets, sensitive attributes, and predictive models. The results show the benefits of using both unlabeled data and Bayesian inference in terms of assessing whether a prediction model is fair or not.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning (Stat)

๐Ÿ”ฎ ๐Ÿ”ฎ The Ethereal

Layer Normalization

Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, Geoffrey E. Hinton

stat.ML ๐Ÿ› arXiv ๐Ÿ“š 12.0K cites 9 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted