Disparity, Inequality, and Accuracy Tradeoffs in Graph Neural Networks for Node Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Graph neural networks (GNNs) are increasingly used in critical human applications for predicting node labels in attributed graphs. Their ability to aggregate features from nodes' neighbors for accurate classification also has the capacity to exacerbate existing biases in data or to introduce new ones towards members from protected demographic groups. Thus, it is imperative to quantify how GNNs may be biased and to what extent their harmful effects may be mitigated. To this end, we propose two new GNN-agnostic interventions namely, (i) PFR-AX which decreases the separability between nodes in protected and non-protected groups, and (ii) PostProcess which updates model predictions based on a blackbox policy to minimize differences between error rates across demographic groups. Through a large set of experiments on four datasets, we frame the efficacies of our approaches (and three variants) in terms of their algorithmic fairness-accuracy tradeoff and benchmark our results against three strong baseline interventions on three state-of-the-art GNN models. Our results show that no single intervention offers a universally optimal tradeoff, but PFR-AX and PostProcess provide granular control and improve model confidence when correctly predicting positive outcomes for nodes in protected groups.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2023.
Builds on
23 of 43 references.
References · 23
- 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,282
- 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,355
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2014DeepWalk: Online Learning of Social Representationscited by 1,543
- 2018Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 1,099
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2019GraphSAINT: Graph Sampling Based Inductive Learning Methodcited by 618
- 2017Representation Learning on Graphs: Methods and Applicationscited by 456
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
- 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 327
- 2021Large Scale Learning on Non-Homophilous Graphs: New Benchmarks and Strong Simple Methodscited by 309
11 more
- 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
- 2020Say No to the Discrimination: Learning Fair Graph Neural Networks with Limited Sensitive Attribute Informationcited by 168
- 2018Adversarial Removal of Demographic Attributes from Text Datacited by 166
- 2021Towards a Unified Framework for Fair and Stable Graph Representation Learningcited by 128
- 2022A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthy Graph Neural Networks: Privacy, Robustness, Fairness, and Explainabilitycited by 118
- 2021EDITS: Modeling and Mitigating Data Bias for Graph Neural Networkscited by 92
- 2016A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracycited by 73
- 2019Incorporating Priors with Feature Attribution on Text Classificationcited by 68
- 2019Operationalizing Individual Fairness with Pairwise Fair Representationscited by 64
- 2019Discrimination in the Age of Algorithmscited by 51
- 2021CrossWalk: Fairness-enhanced Node Representation Learningcited by 34
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2.
3 papers.