MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Fair Classifier Using Mutual Information

2020· article· en· W3080361879 on OpenAlexaff
Jaewoong Cho, Gyeongjo Hwang, Changho Suh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutual informationBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Disparate impactOddsIndependence (probability theory)Mutual aidTraining setLogistic regressionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As machine learning becomes prevalent in our daily lives involving a widening array of applications such as medicine, finance, job hiring and criminal justice, one morally & legally motivated need for machine learning algorithms is to ensure fairness for disadvantageous against advantageous groups. Fairness in machine learning aims at guaranteeing the irrelevancy of a prediction output to sensitive attributes like race, sex and religion. To this end, we take an information- theoretic approach using mutual information (MI) which can fully capture such independence. Inspired by the fact that MI between prediction and the sensitive attribute being zero is the "sufficient and necessary condition" for independence, we develop an MI-based algorithm that well trades off prediction accuracy for fairness performance often quantified as Disparate Impact (DI) or Equalized Odds (EO). Our experiments both on synthetic and benchmark real datasets demonstrate that our algorithm outperforms prior fair classifiers in tradeoff performance both w.r.t. DI and EO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207