Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Brief Tutorial on Sample Size Calculations for Fairness Audits (2312.04745v1)

Published 7 Dec 2023 in stat.AP and cs.LG

Abstract: In fairness audits, a standard objective is to detect whether a given algorithm performs substantially differently between subgroups. Properly powering the statistical analysis of such audits is crucial for obtaining informative fairness assessments, as it ensures a high probability of detecting unfairness when it exists. However, limited guidance is available on the amount of data necessary for a fairness audit, lacking directly applicable results concerning commonly used fairness metrics. Additionally, the consideration of unequal subgroup sample sizes is also missing. In this tutorial, we address these issues by providing guidance on how to determine the required subgroup sample sizes to maximize the statistical power of hypothesis tests for detecting unfairness. Our findings are applicable to audits of binary classification models and multiple fairness metrics derived as summaries of the confusion matrix. Furthermore, we discuss other aspects of audit study designs that can increase the reliability of audit results.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (30)
  1. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it’s biased against blacks. www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing, 2016. Accessed on 2020-05-29.
  2. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson, editors, Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, volume 81 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 77–91. PMLR, 23–24 Feb 2018. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html.
  3. The secret bias hidden in mortgage-approval algorithms. https://themarkup.org/denied/2021/08/25/the-secret-bias-hidden-in-mortgage-approval-algorithms, 2021. Accessed: 2023-03-28.
  4. Discrimination through optimization: How facebook’s ad delivery can lead to biased outcomes. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3(CSCW), nov 2019. doi: 10.1145/3359301. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3359301.
  5. An external stability audit framework to test the validity of personality prediction in ai hiring. Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 36(6):2153–2193, nov 2022. ISSN 1384-5810. doi: 10.1007/s10618-022-00861-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-022-00861-0.
  6. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464):447–453, 2019.
  7. Actionable auditing revisited: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial ai products. Commun. ACM, 66(1):101–108, dec 2022. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3571151. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3571151.
  8. Closing the ai accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’20, page 33–44, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450369367. doi: 10.1145/3351095.3372873. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873.
  9. The medical algorithmic audit. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(5):e384–e397, 2022. ISSN 2589-7500. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00003-6. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589750022000036.
  10. Active fairness auditing. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 24929–24962. PMLR, 17–23 Jul 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/yan22c.html.
  11. Auditing fairness by betting, 2023.
  12. Statistical inference for fairness auditing, 2023.
  13. Online fairness auditing through iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’23, page 1665–1676, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400701030. doi: 10.1145/3580305.3599454. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3580305.3599454.
  14. Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a binary outcome. Statistics in Medicine, 40(19):4230–4251, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9025. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.9025.
  15. Minimum sample size calculations for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a time-to-event outcome. Statistics in Medicine, 41(7):1280–1295, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9275. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.9275.
  16. Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a continuous outcome. Statistics in Medicine, 40(1):133–146, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8766. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.8766.
  17. Janet Wittes. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiologic reviews, 24(1):39–53, 2002.
  18. Measures of disparity and their efficient estimation. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’23, page 927–938, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400702310. doi: 10.1145/3600211.3604697. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604697.
  19. Shannon Bond. Nyu researchers were studying disinformation on facebook. the company cut them off, 2021. URL https://www.npr.org/2021/08/04/1024791053/facebook-boots-nyu-disinformation-researchers-off-its-platform-and-critics-cry-f. Accessed 26 September 2023.
  20. Building and auditing fair algorithms: A case study in candidate screening. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, page 666–677, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450383097. doi: 10.1145/3442188.3445928. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445928.
  21. Building classifiers with independency constraints. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pages 13–18, 2009. doi: 10.1109/ICDMW.2009.83.
  22. Alexandra Chouldechova. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data, 5(2):153–163, 2017.
  23. A reductions approach to fair classification. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 60–69. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/agarwal18a.html.
  24. Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8:141–163, 2021.
  25. A. DasGupta. Asymptotic Theory of Statistics and Probability. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer New York, 2008. ISBN 9780387759715. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=sX4_AAAAQBAJ.
  26. J. Neyman. Contribution to the theory of sampling human populations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 33(201):101–116, 1938. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1938.10503378. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1938.10503378.
  27. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 2021.
  28. It’s COMPASlicated: The messy relationship between RAI datasets and algorithmic fairness benchmarks. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 1), 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=qeM58whnpXM.
  29. U.S. Census Bureau. American community survey, 2023. URL https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/microdata.html. Accessed 15 March 2023.
  30. Wayne A. Fuller. Probability Sampling from a Finite Universe. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009. ISBN 9780470523551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470523551. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470523551.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets