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.

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.