mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Algorithmic Discrimination

arXiv 2105.04249 ↗First posted 10 May 2021cs.LG cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Traditional approaches to ensure group fairness in algorithmic decision making aim to equalize ``total'' error rates for different subgroups in the population. In contrast, we argue that the fairness approaches should instead focus only on equalizing errors arising due to model uncertainty (a.k.a epistemic uncertainty), caused due to lack of knowledge about the best model or due to lack of data. In other words, our proposal calls for ignoring the errors that occur due to uncertainty inherent in the data, i.e., aleatoric uncertainty. We draw a connection between predictive multiplicity and model uncertainty and argue that the techniques from predictive multiplicity could be used to identify errors made due to model uncertainty. We propose scalable convex proxies to come up with classifiers that exhibit predictive multiplicity and empirically show that our methods are comparable in performance and up to four orders of magnitude faster than the current state-of-the-art. We further propose methods to achieve our goal of equalizing group error rates arising due to model uncertainty in algorithmic decision making and demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods using synthetic and real-world datasets.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2021.

Builds on

23 of 46 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2019Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methodscited by 913
  4. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  5. 2016CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimizationcited by 641
  6. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  7. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 373
  8. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
  9. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  10. 2014On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Modelscited by 286
  11. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  12. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 190
11 more
  1. 2018Fair Clustering Through Fairletscited by 176
  2. 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 166
  3. 2017A Convex Framework for Fair Regressioncited by 148
  4. 2018Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankingscited by 124
  5. 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
  6. 2020On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicitycited by 74
  7. 2019Operationalizing Individual Fairness with Pairwise Fair Representationscited by 64
  8. 2017From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classificationcited by 60
  9. 2016Disciplined Convex-Concave Programmingcited by 29
  10. 2017Penalizing Unfairness in Binary Classificationcited by 25
  11. 2019Variable Importance Clouds: A Way to Explore Variable Importance for the Set of Good Modelscited by 19

Built on by

Not cited yet.