The Missing Link: Allocation Performance in Causal Machine Learning

Automated decision-making (ADM) systems are being deployed across a diverse range of critical problem areas such as social welfare and healthcare. Recent work highlights the importance of causal ML models in ADM systems, but implementing them in complex social environments poses significant challenges. Research on how these challenges impact the performance in specific downstream decision-making tasks is limited. Addressing this gap, we make use of a comprehensive real-world dataset of jobseekers to illustrate how the performance of a single CATE model can vary significantly across different decision-making scenarios and highlight the differential influence of challenges such as distribution shifts on predictions and allocations.

Multi-CATE: Multi-Accurate Conditional Average Treatment Effect Estimation Robust to Unknown Covariate Shifts

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is important to tailor treatments to those individuals who would most likely benefit. However, conditional average treatment effect predictors may often be trained on one population but possibly deployed on different, possibly unknown populations. We use methodology for learning multi-accurate predictors to post-process CATE T-learners (differenced regressions) to become robust to unknown covariate shifts at the time of deployment. The method works in general for pseudo-outcome regression, such as the DR-learner. We show how this approach can combine (large) confounded observational and (smaller) randomized datasets by learning a confounded predictor from the observational dataset, and auditing for multi-accuracy on the randomized controlled trial. We show improvements in bias and mean squared error in simulations with increasingly larger covariate shift, and on a semi-synthetic case study of a parallel large observational study and smaller randomized controlled experiment. Overall, we establish a connection between methods developed for multi-distribution learning and achieve appealing desiderata (e.g. external validity) in causal inference and machine learning.

Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research

Data practices shape research and practice on fairness in machine learning (fair ML). Critical data studies offer important reflections and critiques for the responsible advancement of the field by highlighting shortcomings and proposing recommendations for improvement. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of fair ML datasets, demonstrating how unreflective yet common practices hinder the reach and reliability of algorithmic fairness findings. We systematically study protected information encoded in tabular datasets and their usage in 280 experiments across 142 publications. Our analyses identify three main areas of concern: (1) a \textbf{lack of representation for certain protected attributes} in both data and evaluations; (2) the widespread \textbf{exclusion of minorities} during data preprocessing; and (3) \textbf{opaque data processing} threatening the generalization of fairness research. By conducting exemplary analyses on the utilization of prominent datasets, we demonstrate how unreflective data decisions disproportionately affect minority groups, fairness metrics, and resultant model comparisons. Additionally, we identify supplementary factors such as limitations in publicly available data, privacy considerations, and a general lack of awareness, which exacerbate these challenges. To address these issues, we propose a set of recommendations for data usage in fairness research centered on transparency and responsible inclusion. This study underscores the need for a critical reevaluation of data practices in fair ML and offers directions to improve both the sourcing and usage of datasets.

Connecting Algorithmic Fairness to Quality Dimensions in Machine Learning in Official Statistics and Survey Production

National Statistical Organizations (NSOs) increasingly draw on Machine Learning (ML) to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of their products. When introducing ML solutions, NSOs must ensure that high standards with respect to robustness, reproducibility, and accuracy are upheld as codified, e.g., in the Quality Framework for Statistical Algorithms (QF4SA; Yung et al. 2022). At the same time, a growing body of research focuses on fairness as a pre-condition of a safe deployment of ML to prevent disparate social impacts in practice. However, fairness has not yet been explicitly discussed as a quality aspect in the context of the application of ML at NSOs. We employ Yung et al. (2022)'s QF4SA quality framework and present a mapping of its quality dimensions to algorithmic fairness. We thereby extend the QF4SA framework in several ways: we argue for fairness as its own quality dimension, we investigate the interaction of fairness with other dimensions, and we explicitly address data, both on its own and its interaction with applied methodology. In parallel with empirical illustrations, we show how our mapping can contribute to methodology in the domains of official statistics, algorithmic fairness, and trustworthy machine learning.

Annotation Sensitivity: Training Data Collection Methods Affect Model Performance

When training data are collected from human annotators, the design of the annotation instrument, the instructions given to annotators, the characteristics of the annotators, and their interactions can impact training data. This study demonstrates that design choices made when creating an annotation instrument also impact the models trained on the resulting annotations. We introduce the term annotation sensitivity to refer to the impact of annotation data collection methods on the annotations themselves and on downstream model performance and predictions. We collect annotations of hate speech and offensive language in five experimental conditions of an annotation instrument, randomly assigning annotators to conditions. We then fine-tune BERT models on each of the five resulting datasets and evaluate model performance on a holdout portion of each condition. We find considerable differences between the conditions for 1) the share of hate speech/offensive language annotations, 2) model performance, 3) model predictions, and 4) model learning curves. Our results emphasize the crucial role played by the annotation instrument which has received little attention in the machine learning literature. We call for additional research into how and why the instrument impacts the annotations to inform the development of best practices in instrument design.

Bridging the Gap: Towards an Expanded Toolkit for ML-Supported Decision-Making in the Public Sector

Machine Learning (ML) systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector, with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare, financial fraud detection, and public health. While these systems offer great potential benefits to institutional decision-making processes, such as improved efficiency and reliability, they still face the challenge of aligning intricate and nuanced policy objectives with the precise formalization requirements necessitated by ML models. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap between ML and public sector decision-making by presenting a comprehensive overview of key technical challenges where disjunctions between policy goals and ML models commonly arise. We concentrate on pivotal points of the ML pipeline that connect the model to its operational environment, delving into the significance of representative training data and highlighting the importance of a model setup that facilitates effective decision-making. Additionally, we link these challenges with emerging methodological advancements, encompassing causal ML, domain adaptation, uncertainty quantification, and multi-objective optimization, illustrating the path forward for harmonizing ML and public sector objectives.

Everything, Everywhere All in One Evaluation: Using Multiverse Analysis to Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions on Algorithmic Fairness

A vast number of systems across the world use algorithmic decision making (ADM) to (partially) automate decisions that have previously been made by humans. When designed well, these systems promise more objective decisions while saving large amounts of resources and freeing up human time. However, when ADM systems are not designed well, they can lead to unfair decisions which discriminate against societal groups. The downstream effects of ADMs critically depend on the decisions made during the systems' design and implementation, as biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced along the modeling pipeline. Many of these design decisions are made implicitly, without knowing exactly how they will influence the final system. It is therefore important to make explicit the decisions made during the design of ADM systems and understand how these decisions affect the fairness of the resulting system. To study this issue, we draw on insights from the field of psychology and introduce the method of multiverse analysis for algorithmic fairness. In our proposed method, we turn implicit design decisions into explicit ones and demonstrate their fairness implications. By combining decisions, we create a grid of all possible "universes" of decision combinations. For each of these universes, we compute metrics of fairness and performance. Using the resulting dataset, one can see how and which decisions impact fairness. We demonstrate how multiverse analyses can be used to better understand variability and robustness of algorithmic fairness using an exemplary case study of predicting public health coverage of vulnerable populations for potential interventions. Our results illustrate how decisions during the design of a machine learning system can have surprising effects on its fairness and how to detect these effects using multiverse analysis.

Uncertainty-aware predictive modeling for fair data-driven decisions

Both industry and academia have made considerable progress in developing trustworthy and responsible machine learning (ML) systems. While critical concepts like fairness and explainability are often addressed, the safety of systems is typically not sufficiently taken into account. By viewing data-driven decision systems as socio-technical systems, we draw on the uncertainty in ML literature to show how fairML systems can also be safeML systems. We posit that a fair model needs to be an uncertainty-aware model, e.g. by drawing on distributional regression. For fair decisions, we argue that a safe fail option should be used for individuals with uncertain categorization. We introduce semi-structured deep distributional regression as a modeling framework which addresses multiple concerns brought against standard ML models and show its use in a real-world example of algorithmic profiling of job seekers.

Fairness in Algorithmic Profiling: A German Case Study

Algorithmic profiling is increasingly used in the public sector as a means to allocate limited public resources effectively and objectively. One example is the prediction-based statistical profiling of job seekers to guide the allocation of support measures by public employment services. However, empirical evaluations of potential side-effects such as unintended discrimination and fairness concerns are rare. In this study, we compare and evaluate statistical models for predicting job seekers' risk of becoming long-term unemployed with respect to prediction performance, fairness metrics, and vulnerabilities to data analysis decisions. Focusing on Germany as a use case, we evaluate profiling models under realistic conditions by utilizing administrative data on job seekers' employment histories that are routinely collected by German public employment services. Besides showing that these data can be used to predict long-term unemployment with competitive levels of accuracy, we highlight that different classification policies have very different fairness implications. We therefore call for rigorous auditing processes before such models are put to practice.

Distributive Justice and Fairness Metrics in Automated Decision-making: How Much Overlap Is There?

The advent of powerful prediction algorithms led to increased automation of high-stake decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources such as government spending and welfare support. This automation bears the risk of perpetuating unwanted discrimination against vulnerable and historically disadvantaged groups. Research on algorithmic discrimination in computer science and other disciplines developed a plethora of fairness metrics to detect and correct discriminatory algorithms. Drawing on robust sociological and philosophical discourse on distributive justice, we identify the limitations and problematic implications of prominent fairness metrics. We show that metrics implementing equality of opportunity only apply when resource allocations are based on deservingness, but fail when allocations should reflect concerns about egalitarianism, sufficiency, and priority. We argue that by cleanly distinguishing between prediction tasks and decision tasks, research on fair machine learning could take better advantage of the rich literature on distributive justice.