A high-level goal of many AI projects is to address the ethical implications of algorithms along the lines of fairness and discrimination.
Why would we care about fairness?
It is a known fact that algorithms can facilitate illegal discrimination .
For example, it may not surprise that each investor wants to put more capital in loans with a high return of investment and low risk.
A modern idea is to use a machine learning model to decide, based on the sliver of known information about the outcome of past loans, which future loan requests give the largest chance of the borrower fully paying it back while achieving the best trade-off with high returns (high-interest rate).
There’s one problem: the model is trained on historical data, and poor uneducated people, often racial minorities or people with less working experience have a historical trend of being more likely to succumb to loan charge-off than the general population.
So if our model is trying to maximize the return of investment, it may also be targeting white people, people in specific zip codes, people with work experience, de facto denying opportunities for fair loans to the remaining population.
Such behavior would be illegal.
There could be two points of failure here:
- we could have unwittingly encoded biases into the model based on a biased exploration of the data,
- the data itself could encode biases due to human decisions made to create it.
Luckily combating disparate treatment is easy.
Method 1: Disparate Treatment Check
Although no definition is widely agreed as a good definition of fairness, we can use statistical parity to test the hypothesis of fairness on a protected attribute such as race. This is a disparate treatment check.
Let’s consider the population of borrowers who applied for a loan called as P , and there is a known subset B of Black borrowers within that population.
We assume that there is some distribution D over P which represents the probability that any of those borrowers will be picked by our model for evaluation.
Our model is a classifier m : X → 0,1 that gives labels to borrowers. If m =1 then the person will Charge Off on his loan, if m =0, the person will fully pay his loan.
The bias or statistical imparity of m on B with respect to X , D is the difference between the probability that a random Black borrower is labeled 1 and the probability that a random non-Black borrower is labeled 1.
If the statistical imparity is small, then we can say that our model is having statistical parity. This metric describes how fair our model is with respect to the protected subset population B .
The input of the function is an array of binary values (1 if the sample is a loan requested by a Black person, 0 else) and a second array of binary values (1 if the model predicted that the loan will Charge Off, 0 else).
Method 2: Disparate Impact Check
Disparate treatment is often referred to as intentional. On the other hand, disparate impact is unintentional. In United States labor law disparate impact refers to “practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral.”
Disparate impact measures the ratio of conditional probabilities P that the majority and protected classes get a particular outcome. The legal definition mentions a threshold of 80%.
If P(White|chargeoff)/P(Black|chargeoff) <= 80% then the definition of disparate impact is satisfied.
The input of the function is an array of binary values (1 if the sample is a loan requested by a Black person, 0 else) and a second array of binary values (1 if the model predicted that the loan will Charge Off, 0 else).
The output is True if the model demonstrates discrimination, False else. The degree of discrimination is also provided between 0 and 1.
Conclusion
In this article, we introduced statistical parity as a metric that characterizes the degree of discrimination between groups, where groups are defined concerning some protected class (e.g. Black population). We also covered the 80 percent rule to measure disparate impact.
Both methods make an easy starting point to check fairness for a classifier model. An advanced understanding is offered in this tutorial on fairness in machine learning .
You can read more about uncertainty in AI in my follow-up articles below:
以上就是本文的全部内容,希望本文的内容对大家的学习或者工作能带来一定的帮助,也希望大家多多支持 码农网
猜你喜欢:本站部分资源来源于网络,本站转载出于传递更多信息之目的,版权归原作者或者来源机构所有,如转载稿涉及版权问题,请联系我们。
超简单!一学就懂的互联网金融
视觉图文 / 人民邮电出版社 / 2015-2-1 / 45.00元
零基础、全图解,通过130多个精辟的知识点、220多张通俗易懂的逻辑图表,让您一书在手,即可彻底看懂、玩转互联网金融从菜鸟成为达人,从新手成为互联网金融高手! 本书主要特色:最简洁的版式+最直观的图解+最实用的内容。 本书细节特色:10章专题内容详解+80多个特别提醒奉献+130多个知识点讲解+220多张图片全程图解,深度剖析互联网金融的精华之处,帮助读者在最短的时间内掌握互联网金融知......一起来看看 《超简单!一学就懂的互联网金融》 这本书的介绍吧!