Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores · HackerPapers discussions

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by Legend2440

Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:39:06 GMT

On the flip side: A lot of claims of AI bias are overblown and/or straight-up disingenuous. Remember when ProPublica claimed that recidivism prediction models were biased against black people? (https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compa...) They rigged their analysis. There are two different fairness metrics - individual and group-based - that cannot possibly be fulfilled at the same time if there is any difference between the groups. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807v2) The model was fair all along according to individual metrics. ProPublica picked their fairness metric so…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by lalaland1125

Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:37:07 GMT

> Some people expect that fighting algorithmic racism is going to come with some sort of trade-off. Um, that's because we know it comes with trade-offs once you have the most optimal algorithm. See for instance https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.02413.pdf. If your best performing algorithm is "racist" (for some definition of racist") you are mathematically forced to make tradeoffs if you want to eliminate that "racism". Of course, defining "racism" itself gets extremely tricky because many definitions of racism are mutually contradictory (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807.pdf).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by bobcostas55

Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:42:56 GMT

>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1] [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by sanxiyn

Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:45:53 GMT

>> there is no magic algorithm that bypasses this fact. > Maybe there is No, there isn't. We actually have a mathematical proof (which is quite simple) why this is impossible. Specifically, following conditions can't be true at the same time: 1. groups differ in base rate 2. prediction isn't perfect 3. decision is correct at the same rate for groups 4. decision is correct at the same rate for groups, restricted to positive/negative class. 1 is a brute fact. Your toy example insinuates at 2. 3 is called calibration and what is usually optimized by machine learning. When people say algorithm is…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — HN submission

Sun, 24 Sep 2017 00:36:31 GMT

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by bbig3831

Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:11:55 GMT

There was a Washington Post article and arXiv paper on this topic several months ago. [1][2] The problem boils down to the definition of bias. Northpointe, the company that owns COMPAS, says the algorithm treats black and white defendants equally, which is true. Others claim that its predictions for blacks are wrong more often than for whites, which is also true. The main point of the paper is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to consider race, then the predictions will be wrong more often for blacks. If you don't want the predictions to be wrong more often for…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by yummyfajitas

Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:21:03 GMT

Not only that, there are impossibility theorems that say you can't meet everyone's definition of "nondiscriminatory" except in a few trivial cases. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf I.e. every algorithm will be "discriminatory" unless you predictor is perfect (i.e. gets 100% of decisions right). It's just a question of which kind of discriminatory they are. The same is true of any human decision process. Unfortunately this means that we will be subjected to a slew of innumerate reporters posting "XXX is discriminatory" articles, regardless of how decisions are made.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by aub3bhat

Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:02:01 GMT

Propublica has an "interesting" definition of "fairness". It turns out there is a beautiful mathematical result that shows that the different definitions of "fairness" are inherently incompatible with each other and cannot be satisfied at the same time. This is the best article that summarizes the controversy on this subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/1... Paper by Jon Kleinberg and Sendhil M. and Manish Raghavan on this topic https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores — mentioned by yummyfajitas

Sun, 06 Nov 2016 23:27:08 GMT

The conclusion that numerate people are coming to regarding algorithms for court sentencing is quite different from what you describe. The conclusion there is simply a theorem: it's mathematically impossible to be both well calibrated (a black and white person receiving the same risk score have the same probability of committing crime) and also racially balanced (similar levels of false positives), except in trivial and unrealistic cases. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf See also this WaPo article explaining in simpler terms…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.