arXiv subjects

Krishna P. Gummadi

Publications and source records attributed to Krishna P. Gummadi.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

arXiv2020

On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variance

Quota-based fairness mechanisms like the so-called Rooney rule or four-fifths rule are used in selection problems such as hiring or college admission to reduce inequalities based on sensitive demographic attributes. These mechanisms are often viewed as introducing a trade-off between selection fairness and utility. In recent work, however, Kleinberg and Raghavan showed that, in the presence of implicit bias in estimating candidates' quality, the Rooney rule can increase the utility of the selection process. We argue that even in the absence of implicit bias, the estimates of candidates' quality from different groups may differ in another fundamental way, namely, in their variance. We term this phenomenon implicit variance and we ask: can fairness mechanisms be beneficial to the utility of a selection process in the presence of implicit variance (even in the absence of implicit bias)? To answer this question, we propose a simple model in which candidates have a true latent quality that is drawn from a group-independent normal distribution. To make the selection, a decision maker receives an unbiased estimate of the quality of each candidate, with normal noise, but whose variance depends on the candidate's group. We then compare the utility obtained by imposing a fairness mechanism that we term $γ$-rule (it includes demographic parity and the four-fifths rule as special cases), to that of a group-oblivious selection algorithm that picks the candidates with the highest estimated quality independently of their group. Our main result shows that the demographic parity mechanism always increases the selection utility, while any $γ$-rule weakly increases it. We extend our model to a two-stage selection process where the true quality is observed at the second stage. We discuss multiple extensions of our results, in particular to different distributions of the true latent quality.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms

We investigate the problem of fair recommendation in the context of two-sided online platforms, comprising customers on one side and producers on the other. Traditionally, recommendation services in these platforms have focused on maximizing customer satisfaction by tailoring the results according to the personalized preferences of individual customers. However, our investigation reveals that such customer-centric design may lead to unfair distribution of exposure among the producers, which may adversely impact their well-being. On the other hand, a producer-centric design might become unfair to the customers. Thus, we consider fairness issues that span both customers and producers. Our approach involves a novel mapping of the fair recommendation problem to a constrained version of the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods. Our proposed FairRec algorithm guarantees at least Maximin Share (MMS) of exposure for most of the producers and Envy-Free up to One item (EF1) fairness for every customer. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the effectiveness of FairRec in ensuring two-sided fairness while incurring a marginal loss in the overall recommendation quality.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2020

Fair Inputs and Fair Outputs: The Incompatibility of Fairness in Privacy and Accuracy

Fairness concerns about algorithmic decision-making systems have been mainly focused on the outputs (e.g., the accuracy of a classifier across individuals or groups). However, one may additionally be concerned with fairness in the inputs. In this paper, we propose and formulate two properties regarding the inputs of (features used by) a classifier. In particular, we claim that fair privacy (whether individuals are all asked to reveal the same information) and need-to-know (whether users are only asked for the minimal information required for the task at hand) are desirable properties of a decision system. We explore the interaction between these properties and fairness in the outputs (fair prediction accuracy). We show that for an optimal classifier these three properties are in general incompatible, and we explain what common properties of data make them incompatible. Finally we provide an algorithm to verify if the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset, and use the algorithm to show that this trade-off is common in real data.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Bayesian Social Influence in the Online Realm

Our opinions, which things we like or dislike, depend on the opinions of those around us. Nowadays, we are influenced by the opinions of online strangers, expressed in comments and ratings on online platforms. Here, we perform novel "academic A/B testing" experiments with over 2,500 participants to measure the extent of that influence. In our experiments, the participants watch and evaluate videos on mirror proxies of YouTube and Vimeo. We control the comments and ratings that are shown underneath each of these videos. Our study shows that from 5$\%$ up to 40$\%$ of subjects adopt the majority opinion of strangers expressed in the comments. Using Bayes' theorem, we derive a flexible and interpretable family of models of social influence, in which each individual forms posterior opinions stochastically following a logit model. The variants of our mixture model that maximize Akaike information criterion represent two sub-populations, i.e., non-influenceable and influenceable individuals. The prior opinions of the non-influenceable individuals are strongly correlated with the external opinions and have low standard error, whereas the prior opinions of influenceable individuals have high standard error and become correlated with the external opinions due to social influence. Our findings suggest that opinions are random variables updated via Bayes' rule whose standard deviation is correlated with opinion influenceability. Based on these findings, we discuss how to hinder opinion manipulation and misinformation diffusion in the online realm.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2019

Operationalizing Individual Fairness with Pairwise Fair Representations

We revisit the notion of individual fairness proposed by Dwork et al. A central challenge in operationalizing their approach is the difficulty in eliciting a human specification of a similarity metric. In this paper, we propose an operationalization of individual fairness that does not rely on a human specification of a distance metric. Instead, we propose novel approaches to elicit and leverage side-information on equally deserving individuals to counter subordination between social groups. We model this knowledge as a fairness graph, and learn a unified Pairwise Fair Representation (PFR) of the data that captures both data-driven similarity between individuals and the pairwise side-information in fairness graph. We elicit fairness judgments from a variety of sources, including human judgments for two real-world datasets on recidivism prediction (COMPAS) and violent neighborhood prediction (Crime & Communities). Our experiments show that the PFR model for operationalizing individual fairness is practically viable.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Incremental Fairness in Two-Sided Market Platforms: On Smoothly Updating Recommendations

Major online platforms today can be thought of as two-sided markets with producers and customers of goods and services. There have been concerns that over-emphasis on customer satisfaction by the platforms may affect the well-being of the producers. To counter such issues, few recent works have attempted to incorporate fairness for the producers. However, these studies have overlooked an important issue in such platforms -- to supposedly improve customer utility, the underlying algorithms are frequently updated, causing abrupt changes in the exposure of producers. In this work, we focus on the fairness issues arising out of such frequent updates, and argue for incremental updates of the platform algorithms so that the producers have enough time to adjust (both logistically and mentally) to the change. However, naive incremental updates may become unfair to the customers. Thus focusing on recommendations deployed on two-sided platforms, we formulate an ILP based online optimization to deploy changes incrementally in n steps, where we can ensure smooth transition of the exposure of items while guaranteeing a minimum utility for every customer. Evaluations over multiple real world datasets show that our proposed mechanism for platform updates can be efficient and fair to both the producers and the customers in two-sided platforms.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2019

An Empirical Study on Learning Fairness Metrics for COMPAS Data with Human Supervision

The notion of individual fairness requires that similar people receive similar treatment. However, this is hard to achieve in practice since it is difficult to specify the appropriate similarity metric. In this work, we attempt to learn such similarity metric from human annotated data. We gather a new dataset of human judgments on a criminal recidivism prediction (COMPAS) task. By assuming the human supervision obeys the principle of individual fairness, we leverage prior work on metric learning, evaluate the performance of several metric learning methods on our dataset, and show that the learned metrics outperform the Euclidean and Precision metric under various criteria. We do not provide a way to directly learn a similarity metric satisfying the individual fairness, but to provide an empirical study on how to derive the similarity metric from human supervisors, then future work can use this as a tool to understand human supervision.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

DADI: Dynamic Discovery of Fair Information with Adversarial Reinforcement Learning

We introduce a framework for dynamic adversarial discovery of information (DADI), motivated by a scenario where information (a feature set) is used by third parties with unknown objectives. We train a reinforcement learning agent to sequentially acquire a subset of the information while balancing accuracy and fairness of predictors downstream. Based on the set of already acquired features, the agent decides dynamically to either collect more information from the set of available features or to stop and predict using the information that is currently available. Building on previous work exploring adversarial representation learning, we attain group fairness (demographic parity) by rewarding the agent with the adversary's loss, computed over the final feature set. Importantly, however, the framework provides a more general starting point for fair or private dynamic information discovery. Finally, we demonstrate empirically, using two real-world datasets, that we can trade-off fairness and predictive performance

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Minimizing Margin of Victory for Fair Political and Educational Districting

In many practical scenarios, a population is divided into disjoint groups for better administration, e.g., electorates into political districts, employees into departments, students into school districts, and so on. However, grouping people arbitrarily may lead to biased partitions, raising concerns of gerrymandering in political districting, racial segregation in schools, etc. To counter such issues, in this paper, we conceptualize such problems in a voting scenario, and propose FAIR DISTRICTING problem to divide a given set of people having preference over candidates into k groups such that the maximum margin of victory of any group is minimized. We also propose the FAIR CONNECTED DISTRICTING problem which additionally requires each group to be connected. We show that the FAIR DISTRICTING problem is NP-complete for plurality voting even if we have only 3 candidates but admits polynomial time algorithms if we assume k to be some constant or everyone can be moved to any group. In contrast, we show that the FAIR CONNECTED DISTRICTING problem is NP-complete for plurality voting even if we have only 2 candidates and k = 2. Finally, we propose heuristic algorithms for both the problems and show their effectiveness in UK political districting and in lowering racial segregation in public schools in the US.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2019

On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learning

Most existing notions of algorithmic fairness are one-shot: they ensure some form of allocative equality at the time of decision making, but do not account for the adverse impact of the algorithmic decisions today on the long-term welfare and prosperity of certain segments of the population. We take a broader perspective on algorithmic fairness. We propose an effort-based measure of fairness and present a data-driven framework for characterizing the long-term impact of algorithmic policies on reshaping the underlying population. Motivated by the psychological literature on \emph{social learning} and the economic literature on equality of opportunity, we propose a micro-scale model of how individuals may respond to decision-making algorithms. We employ existing measures of segregation from sociology and economics to quantify the resulting macro-scale population-level change. Importantly, we observe that different models may shift the group-conditional distribution of qualifications in different directions. Our findings raise a number of important questions regarding the formalization of fairness for decision-making models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making

People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: giving adequate success rates to specifically protected groups. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention, and this paper advances this less explored direction. The paper introduces a method for probabilistically mapping user records into a low-rank representation that reconciles individual fairness and the utility of classifiers and rankings in downstream applications. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on a variety of real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Fighting Fire with Fire: Using Antidote Data to Improve Polarization and Fairness of Recommender Systems

The increasing role of recommender systems in many aspects of society makes it essential to consider how such systems may impact social good. Various modifications to recommendation algorithms have been proposed to improve their performance for specific socially relevant measures. However, previous proposals are often not easily adapted to different measures, and they generally require the ability to modify either existing system inputs, the system's algorithm, or the system's outputs. As an alternative, in this paper we introduce the idea of improving the social desirability of recommender system outputs by adding more data to the input, an approach we view as providing `antidote' data to the system. We formalize the antidote data problem, and develop optimization-based solutions. We take as our model system the matrix factorization approach to recommendation, and we propose a set of measures to capture the polarization or fairness of recommendations. We then show how to generate antidote data for each measure, pointing out a number of computational efficiencies, and discuss the impact on overall system accuracy. Our experiments show that a modest budget for antidote data can lead to significant improvements in the polarization or fairness of recommendations.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2019

Fairness Behind a Veil of Ignorance: A Welfare Analysis for Automated Decision Making

We draw attention to an important, yet largely overlooked aspect of evaluating fairness for automated decision making systems---namely risk and welfare considerations. Our proposed family of measures corresponds to the long-established formulations of cardinal social welfare in economics, and is justified by the Rawlsian conception of fairness behind a veil of ignorance. The convex formulation of our welfare-based measures of fairness allows us to integrate them as a constraint into any convex loss minimization pipeline. Our empirical analysis reveals interesting trade-offs between our proposal and (a) prediction accuracy, (b) group discrimination, and (c) Dwork et al.'s notion of individual fairness. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, our work provides both heuristic justification and empirical evidence suggesting that a lower-bound on our measures often leads to bounded inequality in algorithmic outcomes; hence presenting the first computationally feasible mechanism for bounding individual-level inequality.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2018

A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunity

We map the recently proposed notions of algorithmic fairness to economic models of Equality of opportunity (EOP)---an extensively studied ideal of fairness in political philosophy. We formally show that through our conceptual mapping, many existing definition of algorithmic fairness, such as predictive value parity and equality of odds, can be interpreted as special cases of EOP. In this respect, our work serves as a unifying moral framework for understanding existing notions of algorithmic fairness. Most importantly, this framework allows us to explicitly spell out the moral assumptions underlying each notion of fairness, and interpret recent fairness impossibility results in a new light. Last but not least and inspired by luck egalitarian models of EOP, we propose a new family of measures for algorithmic fairness. We illustrate our proposal empirically and show that employing a measure of algorithmic (un)fairness when its underlying moral assumptions are not satisfied, can have devastating consequences for the disadvantaged group's welfare.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Equality of Voice: Towards Fair Representation in Crowdsourced Top-K Recommendations

To help their users to discover important items at a particular time, major websites like Twitter, Yelp, TripAdvisor or NYTimes provide Top-K recommendations (e.g., 10 Trending Topics, Top 5 Hotels in Paris or 10 Most Viewed News Stories), which rely on crowdsourced popularity signals to select the items. However, different sections of a crowd may have different preferences, and there is a large silent majority who do not explicitly express their opinion. Also, the crowd often consists of actors like bots, spammers, or people running orchestrated campaigns. Recommendation algorithms today largely do not consider such nuances, hence are vulnerable to strategic manipulation by small but hyper-active user groups. To fairly aggregate the preferences of all users while recommending top-K items, we borrow ideas from prior research on social choice theory, and identify a voting mechanism called Single Transferable Vote (STV) as having many of the fairness properties we desire in top-K item (s)elections. We develop an innovative mechanism to attribute preferences of silent majority which also make STV completely operational. We show the generalizability of our approach by implementing it on two different real-world datasets. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, we show that our proposed approach provides maximum user satisfaction, and cuts down drastically on items disliked by most but hyper-actively promoted by a few users.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2018

On Microtargeting Socially Divisive Ads: A Case Study of Russia-Linked Ad Campaigns on Facebook

Targeted advertising is meant to improve the efficiency of matching advertisers to their customers. However, targeted advertising can also be abused by malicious advertisers to efficiently reach people susceptible to false stories, stoke grievances, and incite social conflict. Since targeted ads are not seen by non-targeted and non-vulnerable people, malicious ads are likely to go unreported and their effects undetected. This work examines a specific case of malicious advertising, exploring the extent to which political ads from the Russian Intelligence Research Agency (IRA) run prior to 2016 U.S. elections exploited Facebook's targeted advertising infrastructure to efficiently target ads on divisive or polarizing topics (e.g., immigration, race-based policing) at vulnerable sub-populations. In particular, we do the following: (a) We conduct U.S. census-representative surveys to characterize how users with different political ideologies report, approve, and perceive truth in the content of the IRA ads. Our surveys show that many ads are "divisive": they elicit very different reactions from people belonging to different socially salient groups. (b) We characterize how these divisive ads are targeted to sub-populations that feel particularly aggrieved by the status quo. Our findings support existing calls for greater transparency of content and targeting of political ads. (c) We particularly focus on how the Facebook ad API facilitates such targeting. We show how the enormous amount of personal data Facebook aggregates about users and makes available to advertisers enables such malicious targeting.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2018

A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indices

Discrimination via algorithmic decision making has received considerable attention. Prior work largely focuses on defining conditions for fairness, but does not define satisfactory measures of algorithmic unfairness. In this paper, we focus on the following question: Given two unfair algorithms, how should we determine which of the two is more unfair? Our core idea is to use existing inequality indices from economics to measure how unequally the outcomes of an algorithm benefit different individuals or groups in a population. Our work offers a justified and general framework to compare and contrast the (un)fairness of algorithmic predictors. This unifying approach enables us to quantify unfairness both at the individual and the group level. Further, our work reveals overlooked tradeoffs between different fairness notions: using our proposed measures, the overall individual-level unfairness of an algorithm can be decomposed into a between-group and a within-group component. Earlier methods are typically designed to tackle only between-group unfairness, which may be justified for legal or other reasons. However, we demonstrate that minimizing exclusively the between-group component may, in fact, increase the within-group, and hence the overall unfairness. We characterize and illustrate the tradeoffs between our measures of (un)fairness and the prediction accuracy.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Blind Justice: Fairness with Encrypted Sensitive Attributes

Recent work has explored how to train machine learning models which do not discriminate against any subgroup of the population as determined by sensitive attributes such as gender or race. To avoid disparate treatment, sensitive attributes should not be considered. On the other hand, in order to avoid disparate impact, sensitive attributes must be examined, e.g., in order to learn a fair model, or to check if a given model is fair. We introduce methods from secure multi-party computation which allow us to avoid both. By encrypting sensitive attributes, we show how an outcome-based fair model may be learned, checked, or have its outputs verified and held to account, without users revealing their sensitive attributes.

stat.ML↗