Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2111.14348

A Causal Approach for Unfair Edge Prioritization and Discrimination Removal

Pavan Ravishankar·Pranshu Malviya·Balaraman Ravindran
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In budget-constrained settings aimed at mitigating unfairness, like law enforcement, it is essential to prioritize the sources of unfairness before taking measures to mitigate them in the real world. Unlike previous works, which only serve as a caution against possible discrimination and de-bias data after data generation, this work provides a toolkit to mitigate unfairness during data generation, given by the Unfair Edge Prioritization algorithm, in addition to de-biasing data after generation, given by the Discrimination Removal algorithm. We assume that a non-parametric Markovian causal model representative of the data generation procedure is given. The edges emanating from the sensitive nodes in the causal graph, such as race, are assumed to be the sources of unfairness. We first quantify Edge Flow in any edge X -> Y, which is the belief of observing a specific value of Y due to the influence of a specific value of X along X -> Y. We then quantify Edge Unfairness by formulating a non-parametric model in terms of edge flows. We then prove that cumulative unfairness towards sensitive groups in a decision, like race in a bail decision, is non-existent when edge unfairness is absent. We prove this result for the non-trivial non-parametric model setting when the cumulative unfairness cannot be expressed in terms of edge unfairness. We then measure the Potential to mitigate the Cumulative Unfairness when edge unfairness is decreased. Based on these measurements, we propose the Unfair Edge Prioritization algorithm that can then be used by policymakers. We also propose the Discrimination Removal Procedure that de-biases a data distribution by eliminating optimization constraints that grow exponentially in the number of sensitive attributes and values taken by them. Extensive experiments validate the theorem and specifications used for quantifying the above measures.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Pavan Ravishankar, Pranshu Malviya, Balaraman Ravindran. 2021-11-29. A Causal Approach for Unfair Edge Prioritization and Discrimination Removal. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.14348

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗