Summary of Mind the Gap: a Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-making, by Drago Plecko et al.
Mind the Gap: A Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-Making
by Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
First submitted to arxiv on: 24 May 2024
Categories
- Main: Machine Learning (cs.LG)
- Secondary: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary This paper addresses the fairness and equity of automated systems by introducing a novel concept called the “margin complement”. The authors focus on how prediction scores change after thresholding operations, which is crucial in practical applications. They demonstrate that the disparity in the optimal 0/1 predictor can be causally decomposed into influences on the prediction score and margin complement along different pathways. This decomposition allows disentangling causal differences inherited from the true outcome versus those arising from optimization procedures. The paper highlights the need for regulatory oversight due to bias amplification and introduces new notions of weak and strong business necessity, along with an algorithm for assessing these notions. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary This paper is about making sure that automated systems are fair and treat everyone equally. Right now, most research focuses on how well a system predicts something, but not what happens later when people make decisions based on those predictions. The authors look at how the prediction score changes after an operation called thresholding, which is important in real-life applications. They show that the difference between groups can be broken down into two parts: one part comes from the true outcome itself and another part comes from the way we optimize the predictor. This means we need to pay attention to where biases come from and regulate automated systems more closely. |
Keywords
» Artificial intelligence » Attention » Optimization
