MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389332325 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2023.3340094

Classification Utility, Fairness, and Compactness via Tunable Information Bottleneck and Rényi Measures

2023· article· en· W4389332325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInformation bottleneck methodCompact spaceComputer scienceCategorical variableBottleneckRepresentation (politics)Key (lock)Artificial intelligenceMutual informationMachine learningData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing machine learning algorithms that are accurate yet fair, not discriminating based on any sensitive attribute, is of paramount importance for society to accept AI for critical applications. In this article, we propose a novel fair representation learning method termed the Rényi Fair Information Bottleneck Method (RFIB) which incorporates constraints for utility, fairness, and compactness (compression) of representation, and apply it to image and tabular data classification. A key attribute of our approach is that we consider - in contrast to most prior work - both demographic parity and equalized odds as fairness constraints, allowing for a more nuanced satisfaction of both criteria. Leveraging a variational approach, we show that our objectives yield a loss function involving classical Information Bottleneck (IB) measures and establish an upper bound in terms of two Rényi measures of order <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$ </tex-math></inline-formula> on the mutual information IB term measuring compactness between the input and its encoded embedding. We study the influence of the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$ </tex-math></inline-formula> parameter as well as two other tunable IB parameters on achieving utility/fairness trade-off goals, and show that the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$ </tex-math></inline-formula> parameter gives an additional degree of freedom that can be used to control the compactness of the representation. Experimenting on three different image datasets (EyePACS, CelebA, and FairFace) and two tabular datasets (Adult and COMPAS), using both binary and categorical sensitive attributes, we show that on various utility, fairness, and compound utility/fairness metrics RFIB outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.221 · 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