Training Fair Models in Federated Learning without Data Privacy Infringement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training fair machine learning models becomes more and more important. As many powerful models are trained by collaboration among multiple parties, each holding some sensitive data, it is natural to explore the feasibility of training fair models in federated learning so that the fairness of trained models, the data privacy of clients, and the collaboration between clients can be fully respected simultaneously. However, the task of training fair models in federated learning is challenging, since it is far from trivial to estimate the fairness of a model without knowing the private data of the participating parties, which is often constrained by privacy requirements in federated learning. In this paper, we first propose a federated estimation method to accurately estimate the fairness of a model without infringing the data privacy of any party. Then, we use the fairness estimation to formulate a novel problem of training fair models in federated learning. We develop FedFair, a well-designed federated learning framework, which can successfully train a fair model with high performance without data privacy infringement. Our extensive experiments on three real-world data sets demonstrate the excellent fair model training performance of our method.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".