Pith. sign in

REVIEW

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.09851 v1 pith:P6JWJ2M4 submitted 2020-10-19 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG

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

classification stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG
keywords datafairnessunlabeledexampleslabeledassessingbayesiangroup
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.