Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the distinct impacts of label bias and various selection bias subtypes on classification model evaluation, performance, and bias mitigation effectiveness. The authors introduce a novel biasing and evaluation framework that models fair and biased worlds by introducing controlled bias into real-world datasets. Their empirical analysis reveals that bias type significantly influences model performance and mitigation efficacy, while also demonstrating that fairness and accuracy are not inherently at odds when models are evaluated on unbiased test sets.
Evaluating classification models on biased data can mask true performance and fairness, but this work provides a framework to create unbiased test sets that reveal the real impact of different biases and mitigation strategies.
Bias can be introduced in diverse ways in machine learning datasets, for example via selection or label bias. Although these bias types in themselves have an influence on important aspects of fair machine learning, their different impact has been understudied. In this work, we empirically analyze the effect of label bias and several subtypes of selection bias on the evaluation of classification models, on their performance, and on the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods. We also introduce a biasing and evaluation framework that allows to model fair worlds and their biased counterparts through the introduction of controlled bias in real-life datasets with low discrimination. Using our framework, we empirically analyze the impact of each bias type independently, while obtaining a more representative evaluation of models and mitigation methods than with the traditional use of a subset of biased data as test set. Our results highlight different factors that influence how impactful bias is on model performance. They also show an absence of trade-off between fairness and accuracy, and between individual and group fairness, when models are evaluated on a test set that does not exhibit unwanted bias. They furthermore indicate that the performance of bias mitigation methods is influenced by the type of bias present in the data. Our findings call for future work to develop more accurate evaluations of prediction models and fairness interventions, but also to better understand other types of bias, more complex scenarios involving the combination of different bias types, and other factors that impact the efficiency of the mitigation methods, such as dataset characteristics.
