Showing 1–11 of 11 results for author: Kern, C

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

Authors: Christoph Kern, Michael Kim, Angela Zhou

Abstract: 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 regres… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 28 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research

Authors: Jan Simson, Alessandro Fabris, Christoph Kern

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2024; v1 submitted 26 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Journal ref: FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2024) 642-659

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

Authors: Patrick Oliver Schenk, Christoph Kern

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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 map** 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 map** can contribute to methodology in the domains of official statistics, algorithmic fairness, and trustworthy machine learning. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Annotation Sensitivity: Training Data Collection Methods Affect Model Performance

Authors: Christoph Kern, Stephanie Eckman, Jacob Beck, Rob Chew, Bolei Ma, Frauke Kreuter

Abstract: 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 annota… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 22 January, 2024; v1 submitted 23 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Comments: EMNLP 2023 Findings: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.992/

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

Authors: Unai Fischer-Abaigar, Christoph Kern, Noam Barda, Frauke Kreuter

Abstract: 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 nuanced policy objecti… ▽ More 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 nuanced policy objectives with the precise formalization requirements necessitated by ML models. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap between ML model requirements 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, discussing 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. △ Less

Submitted 26 April, 2024; v1 submitted 29 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions

Authors: Jan Simson, Florian Pfisterer, Christoph Kern

Abstract: A vast number of systems across the world use algorithmic decision making (ADM) to (partially) automate decisions that have previously been made by humans. The downstream effects of ADM systems critically depend on the decisions made during a systems' design, implementation, and evaluation, as biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced along the modeling pipeline. Many of these decisions are ma… ▽ More A vast number of systems across the world use algorithmic decision making (ADM) to (partially) automate decisions that have previously been made by humans. The downstream effects of ADM systems critically depend on the decisions made during a systems' design, implementation, and evaluation, as biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced along the modeling pipeline. Many of these decisions are made implicitly, without knowing exactly how they will influence the final 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 decisions during design and evaluation 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 investigate the variability and robustness of fairness scores and see how and which decisions impact fairness. We demonstrate how multiverse analyses can be used to better understand fairness implications of design and evaluation decisions using an exemplary case study of predicting public health care coverage for vulnerable populations. Our results highlight how decisions regarding the evaluation of a system can lead to vastly different fairness metrics for the same model. This is problematic, as a nefarious actor could optimise or "hack" a fairness metric to portray a discriminating model as fair merely by changing how it is evaluated. We illustrate how a multiverse analysis can help to address this issue. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2024; v1 submitted 31 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Journal ref: FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2024) 1305-1320

Uncertainty-aware predictive modeling for fair data-driven decisions

Authors: Patrick Kaiser, Christoph Kern, David Rügamer

Abstract: Both industry and academia have made considerable progress in develo** 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 sho… ▽ More Both industry and academia have made considerable progress in develo** 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. △ Less

Submitted 4 November, 2022; originally announced November 2022.

Fairness in Algorithmic Profiling: A German Case Study

Authors: Christoph Kern, Ruben L. Bach, Hannah Mautner, Frauke Kreuter

Abstract: 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 concern… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

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

Authors: Matthias Kuppler, Christoph Kern, Ruben L. Bach, Frauke Kreuter

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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. △ Less

Submitted 6 May, 2021; v1 submitted 4 May, 2021; originally announced May 2021.

Global Trends and Predictors of Face Mask Usage During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Authors: Elena Badillo-Goicoechea, Ting-Hsuan Chang, Esther Kim, Sarah LaRocca, Katherine Morris, Xiaoyi Deng, Samantha Chiu, Adrianne Bradford, Andres Garcia, Christoph Kern, Curtiss Cobb, Frauke Kreuter, Elizabeth A. Stuart

Abstract: Background: Guidelines and recommendations from public health authorities related to face masks have been essential in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of mask usage during the pandemic. Methods: We examined a total of 13,723,810 responses to a daily cross-sectional representative online survey in 38 countries who completed from April 23, 2020 to Octobe… ▽ More Background: Guidelines and recommendations from public health authorities related to face masks have been essential in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of mask usage during the pandemic. Methods: We examined a total of 13,723,810 responses to a daily cross-sectional representative online survey in 38 countries who completed from April 23, 2020 to October 31, 2020 and reported having been in public at least once during the last seven days. The outcome was individual face mask usage in public settings, and the predictors were country fixed effects, country-level mask policy stringency, calendar time, individual sociodemographic factors, and health prevention behaviors. Associations were modelled using survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression. Findings: Mask-wearing varied over time and across the 38 countries. While some countries consistently showed high prevalence throughout, in other countries mask usage increased gradually, and a few other countries remained at low prevalence. Controlling for time and country fixed effects, sociodemographic factors (older age, female gender, education, urbanicity) and stricter mask-related policies were significantly associated with higher mask usage in public settings, while social behaviors considered risky in the context of the pandemic (going out to large events, restaurants, shop** centers, and socializing outside of the household) were associated with lower mask use. Interpretation: The decision to wear a face mask in public settings is significantly associated with sociodemographic factors, risky social behaviors, and mask policies. This has important implications for health prevention policies and messaging, including the potential need for more targeted policy and messaging design. △ Less

Submitted 8 January, 2021; v1 submitted 21 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: 39 pages, 2 mian figures, Appendix

A Longitudinal Framework for Predicting Nonresponse in Panel Surveys

Authors: Christoph Kern, Bernd Weiss, Jan-Philipp Kolb

Abstract: Nonresponse in panel studies can lead to a substantial loss in data quality due to its potential to introduce bias and distort survey estimates. Recent work investigates the usage of machine learning to predict nonresponse in advance, such that predicted nonresponse propensities can be used to inform the data collection process. However, predicting nonresponse in panel studies requires accounting… ▽ More Nonresponse in panel studies can lead to a substantial loss in data quality due to its potential to introduce bias and distort survey estimates. Recent work investigates the usage of machine learning to predict nonresponse in advance, such that predicted nonresponse propensities can be used to inform the data collection process. However, predicting nonresponse in panel studies requires accounting for the longitudinal data structure in terms of model building, tuning, and evaluation. This study proposes a longitudinal framework for predicting nonresponse with machine learning and multiple panel waves and illustrates its application. With respect to model building, this approach utilizes information from multiple waves by introducing features that aggregate previous (non)response patterns. Concerning model tuning and evaluation, temporal cross-validation is employed by iterating through pairs of panel waves such that the training and test sets move in time. Implementing this approach with data from a German probability-based mixed-mode panel shows that aggregating information over multiple panel waves can be used to build prediction models with competitive and robust performance over all test waves. △ Less

Submitted 2 November, 2019; v1 submitted 29 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.