As the decisions made or influenced by machine learning models increasingly impact our lives, it is crucial to detect, understand, and mitigate unfairness. But even simply determining what "unfairness" should mean in a given context is non-trivial: there are many competing definitions, and choosing between them often requires a deep understanding of the underlying task. It is thus tempting to use model explainability to gain insights into model fairness, however existing explainability tools do not reliably indicate whether a model is indeed fair. In this work we present a new approach to explaining fairness in machine learning, based on the Shapley value paradigm. Our fairness explanations attribute a model's overall unfairness to individual input features, even in cases where the model does not operate on sensitive attributes directly. Moreover, motivated by the linearity of Shapley explainability, we propose a meta algorithm for applying existing trainingtime fairness interventions, wherein one trains a perturbation to the original model, rather than a new model entirely. By explaining the original model, the perturbation, and the fair-corrected model, we gain insight into the accuracy-fairness trade-off that is being made by the intervention. We further show that this meta algorithm enjoys both flexibility and stability benefits with no loss in performance.

No abstract

No abstract

of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

No abstract