In the plots we compare EBR, LFR and the baseline (e.g. not doing any transformation on the data) for foreigners with respect to non-foreigners using the feature sets SAVRY, Non-SAVRY and All (their combination).
EBR, ensuring that the base rates are equal between foreigners and non-foreigners in the training data (both groups have the same prevalence of recidivism) reduces this disparity at a similar level with LFR. Moreover, EBR and LFR are effective when using features correlated with recidivism, like the demographic and personal history features present in the Non-SAVRY feature set. Furthermore, we see that the baseline often yields disparity which is not observed for the SAVRY Sum (the simple sum of SAVRY scores) and the Expert evaluations.
What is the impact of equalizing base rates on the area under the curve (AUC)? We found something interesting here: when effective in terms fairness, EBR and LFR experience a drop in terms of AUC: 0.01 for EBR and 0.06 for LFR. For the SAVRY feature set, EBR and LFR are not effective in reducing disparity and their AUC does not drop. In this case, there is a clear trade-off between predictive performance and fairness.
What if we use EBR? It’s simple, it reduces disparity, it doesn’t lose so much in terms of AUC. Well, first of all we use EBR with respect to a protected feature, e.g. foreigner. There is nothing ensuring that it will be fair with respect to sex, national groups, or any other protected feature that we care about. Moreover, by doing mitigation (LFR and EBR) you may end up discriminating even more with respect to other groups or even with under-represented sub-groups (e.g. you may discriminate against the Maghrebi subgroup of the foreigners group)!
Second, using LIME we looked at which features are important for EBR, LFR, and the baseline. With the exception of the SAVRY feature set, ML relies on demographic and personal history features. While doing EBR does not change much, the top 10 important features LFR are mostly SAVRY features.
The star symbol denotes Non-SAVRY features which are mostly related to demographic and personal history features.
Now, rememeber that LFC experienced more AUC drop than EBR. This means that we can’t have good predictive performance and fair outcomes on this problem using machine learning. LFR as our most fair option (in terms of ML) has similar or worse AUC to the simple SAVRY sum of scores or Expert evaluation (human-in-the-loop). Note that in comparison to SAVRY sum, LFR cannot be fair with respect to all protected features (foreigner and sex). Mitigation itself is problematic in this case.
In conclusion, discrimination in ML for juvenile recidivism prediction can be explained partially by the difference in base rates. In addition, the nature of features used for training matters: SAVRY vs Non-SAVRY. Having features correlated with demographics and personal history may accentuate discrimination. Moreover, there are some differences between the ML algorithms, which point out that the ML algorithms may pick of different things when classifying someone as recidivist/non-recidivist.
So the question that policy makers ask themselves is why replace SAVRY with ML under these conditions? What are the areas that are of high risk?
There is a trend in computer science to advocate for neutrality of technology. However, as science in itself is neutral, there is a grey zone in computer science which contains applications which are far from neutral. Take for instance face recognition with all its inherent biases. Recently, companies as Microsoft and Amazon discontinued their work and support on this area. In my opinion, face recognition is just an application of image classification, and the way it has been designed and evaluated had a lot to do and did not care at all about the ethical implications and biases. Which makes me think whether these applications should be designed at all.
research, news, machine learning, fairness, bias