Ece Çiğdem Mutlu
ABSTRACT
The widespread use of artificial intelligence algorithms and their role in decision-making with consequential decisions for human subjects has resulted in a growing interest in designing AI algorithms accounting for fairness considerations. There have been attempts to account for fairness of AI algorithms without compromising their accuracy to improve poorly designed algorithms that disregard sensitive attributes (e.g., age, race, and gender) at the peril of introducing or increasing bias against specific groups. Although many studies have examined the optimal trade-off between fairness and accuracy, it remains a challenge to understand the sources of unfairness in decision-making and mitigate it effectively. To tackle this problem, researchers have proposed fair causal learning approaches which assist us in modeling cause and effect knowledge structures, discovering bias sources, and refining AI algorithms to make them more transparent and explainable. In this study, we formalize probabilistic interpretations of both contrastive and counterfactual causality as essential features in order to encourage users' trust and to expand the applicability of such automated systems. We use this formalism to define a novel fairness criterion that we call contrastive counterfactual fairness. This paper introduces, to the best of our knowledge, the first probabilistic fairness-aware data augmentation approach that is based on contrastive counterfactual causality. We tested our approach on two well-known fairness-related datasets, UCI Adult and German Credit, and concluded that our proposed method has a promising ability to capture and mitigate unfairness in AI deployment. This model-agnostic approach can be used with any AI model because it is applied in pre-processing.
Supplemental Material
- Dalal Alrajeh, Hana Chockler, and Joseph Y Halpern. 2020. Combining experts' causal judgments. Artificial Intelligence 288 (2020), 103355.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. 2021. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research 50, 1 (2021), 3--44.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ruth MJ Byrne. 2016. Counterfactual thought. Annual review of psychology 67 (2016), 135--157.Google Scholar
- Longbing Cao, Chengqi Zhang, Thorsten Joachims, Geoffrey Ian Bawtree Webb, Dragos Margineantu, and Graham Williams. 2015. KDD'15: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tapabrata Chakraborti, Arijit Patra, and J Alison Noble. 2020. Contrastive fairness in machine learning. IEEE Letters of the Computer Society 3, 2 (2020), 38--41.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153--163.Google Scholar
- Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, and Aziz Huq. 2017. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 797--806.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maartje MA De Graaf and Bertram F Malle. 2017. How people explain action (and autonomous intelligent systems should too). In 2017 AAAI Fall Symposium Series.Google Scholar
- Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214--226.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hillel J Einhorn and Robin M Hogarth. 1986. Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin 99, 1 (1986), 3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sainyam Galhotra, Yuriy Brun, and Alexandra Meliou. 2017. Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint meeting on foundations of software engineering. 498--510.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sainyam Galhotra, Romila Pradhan, and Babak Salimi. 2021. Explaining black-box algorithms using probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data. 577--590.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tobias Gerstenberg, Noah D Goodman, David A Lagnado, and Joshua B Tenen- baum. 2015. How, whether, why: Causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts.. In CogSci.Google Scholar
- Eric Grynaviski. 2013. Contrasts, counterfactuals, and causes. European Journal of International Relations 19, 4 (2013), 823--846.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016), 3315--3323.Google Scholar
- Ph D Noel Hendrickson. 2011. Counterfactual reasoning: A basic guide for analysts, strategists, and decision makers. Lulu. com.Google Scholar
- Denis J Hilton. 1990. Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psycho- logical Bulletin 107, 1 (1990), 65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lily Hu and Yiling Chen. 2018. A short-term intervention for long-term fairness in the labor market. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 1389--1398.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Andrew Smart. 2021. The use and misuse of counterfactuals in ethical machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 228--236.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas-Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02744 (2017).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016).Google Scholar
- Robert Koulish. 2017. Immigration detention in the risk classification assessment era. Conn. Pub. Int. LJ 16 (2017), 1.Google Scholar
- Matt J Kusner, Joshua R Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counter- factual fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06856 (2017).Google Scholar
- Peter Lipton. 1990. Contrastive explanation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supple- ments 27 (1990), 247--266.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tania Lombrozo. 2012. Explanation and abductive inference. (2012).Google Scholar
- Ann L McGill and Jill G Klein. 1993. Contrastive and counterfactual reasoning in causal judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 6 (1993), 897.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2019. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635 (2019).Google Scholar
- Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial intelligence 267 (2019), 1--38.Google Scholar
- Shira Mitchell, Eric Potash, Solon Barocas, Alexander D'Amour, and Kristian Lum. 2021. Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 8 (2021), 141--163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Razieh Nabi and Ilya Shpitser. 2018. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality. Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Schaffer. 2005. Contrastive knowledge. Oxford studies in epistemology 1 (2005), 235--271.Google Scholar
- Edward H Simpson. 1951. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 13, 2 (1951), 238--241.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ilia Stepin, Jose M Alonso, Alejandro Catala, and Martín Pereira-Fariña. 2021. A survey of contrastive and counterfactual explanation generation methods for explainable artificial intelligence. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 11974--12001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery: Google ads, black names and white names, racial discrimination, and click advertising. Queue 11, 3 (2013), 10--29.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. In 2018 ieee/acm international workshop on software fairness (fairware). IEEE, 1--7.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mingyang Wan, Daochen Zha, Ninghao Liu, and Na Zou. 2021. Modeling Techniques for Machine Learning Fairness: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03015 (2021).Google Scholar
- Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. 1171--1180.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabio Massimo Zennaro and Magdalena Ivanovska. 2018. Counterfactually fair prediction using multiple causal models. In European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, 249--266.Google Scholar
- Fabio Massimo Zennaro and Magdalena Ivanovska. 2018. Pooling of causal models under counterfactual fairness via causal judgement aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09866 (2018Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Contrastive Counterfactual Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making
Recommendations
Learning Fair Node Representations with Graph Counterfactual Fairness
WSDM '22: Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data MiningFair machine learning aims to mitigate the biases of model predictions against certain subpopulations regarding sensitive attributes such as race and gender. Among the many existing fairness notions, counterfactual fairness measures the model fairness ...
Counterfactual Fairness in Text Classification through Robustness
AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and SocietyIn this paper, we study counterfactual fairness in text classification, which asks the question: How would the prediction change if the sensitive attribute referenced in the example were different? Toxicity classifiers demonstrate a counterfactual ...
Disentangled Representation with Causal Constraints for Counterfactual Fairness
Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data MiningAbstractMuch research has been devoted to the problem of learning fair representations; however, they do not explicitly state the relationship between latent representations. In many real-world applications, there may be causal relationships between ...
Comments