4,287 research outputs found
Certifying and removing disparate impact
What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional
bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has
widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be
neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class
(ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the
process.
When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact
(and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process.
In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a
legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring
access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the
algorithm uses.
We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion
of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known,
has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for
disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected
class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data
might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the
effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both
masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly,
our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently
received legal scrutiny.Comment: Extended version of paper accepted at 2015 ACM SIGKDD Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Minin
Predicting sample size required for classification performance
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Supervised learning methods need annotated data in order to generate efficient models. Annotated data, however, is a relatively scarce resource and can be expensive to obtain. For both passive and active learning methods, there is a need to estimate the size of the annotated sample required to reach a performance target.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We designed and implemented a method that fits an inverse power law model to points of a given learning curve created using a small annotated training set. Fitting is carried out using nonlinear weighted least squares optimization. The fitted model is then used to predict the classifier's performance and confidence interval for larger sample sizes. For evaluation, the nonlinear weighted curve fitting method was applied to a set of learning curves generated using clinical text and waveform classification tasks with active and passive sampling methods, and predictions were validated using standard goodness of fit measures. As control we used an un-weighted fitting method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 568 models were fitted and the model predictions were compared with the observed performances. Depending on the data set and sampling method, it took between 80 to 560 annotated samples to achieve mean average and root mean squared error below 0.01. Results also show that our weighted fitting method outperformed the baseline un-weighted method (p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This paper describes a simple and effective sample size prediction algorithm that conducts weighted fitting of learning curves. The algorithm outperformed an un-weighted algorithm described in previous literature. It can help researchers determine annotation sample size for supervised machine learning.</p
- …