File size: 12,310 Bytes
fc0f7bd | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 | {
"cells": [
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"# Using fairlearn GridSearch with census data\n",
"\n",
"This notebook shows how to use `fairlearn` and the Fairness dashboard to generate predictors for the Census dataset. This dataset is a classification problem - given a range of data about 32,000 individuals, predict whether their annual income is above or below fifty thousand dollars per year.\n",
"\n",
"For the purposes of this notebook, we shall treat this as a loan decision problem. We will pretend that the label indicates whether or not each individual repaid a loan in the past. We will use the data to train a predictor to predict whether previously unseen individuals will repay a loan or not. The assumption is that the model predictions are used to decide whether an individual should be offered a loan.\n",
"\n",
"We will first train a fairness-unaware predictor and show that it leads to unfair decisions under a specific notion of fairness called *demographic parity*. We then mitigate unfairness by applying the `GridSearch` algorithm from `fairlearn` package."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Load and preprocess the data set\n",
"\n",
"For simplicity, we import the data set from the `shap` package, which contains the data in a cleaned format. We start by importing the various modules we're going to use:"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"from fairlearn.reductions import GridSearch\n",
"from fairlearn.reductions import DemographicParity, ErrorRate\n",
"\n",
"from sklearn import svm, neighbors, tree\n",
"from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder,StandardScaler\n",
"from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression\n",
"import pandas as pd\n",
"import shap\n",
"\n",
"import numpy as np\n",
"\n",
"shap.initjs()"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We can now load and inspect the data from the `shap` package:"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"X_raw, Y = shap.datasets.adult()\n",
"X_raw"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We are going to treat the sex of each individual as a protected attribute (where 0 indicates female and 1 indicates male), and in this particular case we are going separate this attribute out and drop it from the main data. We then perform some standard data preprocessing steps to convert the data into a format suitable for the ML algorithms"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"A = X_raw[\"Sex\"]\n",
"X = X_raw.drop(labels=['Sex'],axis = 1)\n",
"X = pd.get_dummies(X)\n",
"\n",
"sc = StandardScaler()\n",
"X_scaled = sc.fit_transform(X)\n",
"X_scaled = pd.DataFrame(X_scaled, columns=X.columns)\n",
"\n",
"le = LabelEncoder()\n",
"Y = le.fit_transform(Y)"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Finally, we split the data into training and test sets:"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split\n",
"X_train, X_test, Y_train, Y_test, A_train, A_test = train_test_split(X_scaled, \n",
" Y, \n",
" A,\n",
" test_size = 0.2,\n",
" random_state=0,\n",
" stratify=Y)\n",
"\n",
"# Work around indexing bug\n",
"X_train = X_train.reset_index(drop=True)\n",
"A_train = A_train.reset_index(drop=True)\n",
"X_test = X_test.reset_index(drop=True)\n",
"A_test = A_test.reset_index(drop=True)\n",
"\n",
"# Improve labels\n",
"A_test = A_test.map({ 0:\"female\", 1:\"male\"})"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Training a fairness-unaware predictor\n",
"\n",
"To show the effect of `fairlearn` we will first train a standard ML predictor that does not incorporate fairness For speed of demonstration, we use a simple logistic regression estimator from `sklearn`:"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {
"scrolled": true
},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"unmitigated_predictor = LogisticRegression(solver='liblinear', fit_intercept=True)\n",
"\n",
"unmitigated_predictor.fit(X_train, Y_train)"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We can load this predictor into the Fairness dashboard, and examine how it is unfair (there is a warning about AzureML since we are not yet integrated with that product):"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"from fairlearn.widget import FairlearnDashboard\n",
"FairlearnDashboard(sensitive_features=A_test, sensitive_feature_names=['sex'],\n",
" y_true=Y_test,\n",
" y_pred={\"unmitigated\": unmitigated_predictor.predict(X_test)})"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Looking at the disparity in accuracy, we see that males have an error rate about three times greater than the females. More interesting is the disparity in opportunitiy - males are offered loans at three times the rate of females.\n",
"\n",
"Despite the fact that we removed the feature from the training data, our predictor still discriminates based on sex. This demonstrates that simply ignoring a protected attribute when fitting a predictor rarely eliminates unfairness. There will generally be enough other features correlated with the removed attribute to lead to disparate impact."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Mitigation with GridSearch\n",
"\n",
"The `GridSearch` class in `fairlearn` implements a simplified version of the exponentiated gradient reduction of [Agarwal et al. 2018](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02453). The user supplies a standard ML estimator, which is treated as a blackbox. `GridSearch` works by generating a sequence of relabellings and reweightings, and trains a predictor for each.\n",
"\n",
"For this example, we specify demographic parity (on the protected attribute of sex) as the fairness metric. Demographic parity requires that individuals are offered the opportunity (are approved for a loan in this example) independent of membership in the protected class (i.e., females and males should be offered loans at the same rate). We are using this metric for the sake of simplicity; in general, the appropriate fairness metric will not be obvious."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"sweep = GridSearch(LogisticRegression(solver='liblinear', fit_intercept=True),\n",
" constraints=DemographicParity(),\n",
" grid_size=71)"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Our algorithms provide `fit()` and `predict()` methods, so they behave in a similar manner to other ML packages in Python. We do however have to specify two extra arguments to `fit()` - the column of protected attribute labels, and also the number of predictors to generate in our sweep.\n",
"\n",
"After `fit()` completes, we extract the full set of predictors from the `GridSearch` object."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"sweep.fit(X_train, Y_train,\n",
" sensitive_features=A_train)\n",
"\n",
"predictors = [ z.predictor for z in sweep.all_results]"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We could load these predictors into the Fairness dashboard now. However, the plot would be somewhat confusing due to their number. In this case, we are going to remove the predictors which are dominated in the error-disparity space by others from the sweep (note that the disparity will only be calculated for the protected attribute; other potentially protected attributes will not be mitigated). In general, one might not want to do this, since there may be other considerations beyond the strict optimisation of error and disparity (of the given protected attribute)."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"errors, disparities = [], []\n",
"for m in predictors:\n",
" classifier = lambda X: m.predict(X)\n",
" \n",
" error = ErrorRate()\n",
" error.load_data(X_train, pd.Series(Y_train), sensitive_features=A_train)\n",
" disparity = DemographicParity()\n",
" disparity.load_data(X_train, pd.Series(Y_train), sensitive_features=A_train)\n",
" \n",
" errors.append(error.gamma(classifier)[0])\n",
" disparities.append(disparity.gamma(classifier).max())\n",
" \n",
"all_results = pd.DataFrame( {\"predictor\": predictors, \"error\": errors, \"disparity\": disparities})\n",
"\n",
"non_dominated = []\n",
"for row in all_results.itertuples():\n",
" errors_for_lower_or_eq_disparity = all_results[\"error\"][all_results[\"disparity\"]<=row.disparity]\n",
" if row.error <= errors_for_lower_or_eq_disparity.min():\n",
" non_dominated.append(row.predictor)"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Finally, we can put the dominant models into the Fairness dashboard, along with the unmitigated model."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"dashboard_predicted = {\"unmitigated\": unmitigated_predictor.predict(X_test)}\n",
"for i in range(len(non_dominated)):\n",
" key = \"dominant_model_{0}\".format(i)\n",
" value = non_dominated[i].predict(X_test)\n",
" dashboard_predicted[key] = value\n",
"\n",
"\n",
"FairlearnDashboard(sensitive_features=A_test, sensitive_feature_names=['sex'],\n",
" y_true=Y_test,\n",
" y_pred=dashboard_predicted)"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"We see a Pareto front forming - the set of predictors which represent optimal tradeoffs between accuracy and disparity i predictions. In the ideal case, we would have a predictor at (1,0) - perfectly accurate and without any unfairness under demographic parity (with respect to the protected attribute \"sex\"). The Pareto front represents the closest we can come to this ideal based on our data and choice of estimator. Note the range of the axes - the disparity axis covers more values than the accuracy, so we can reduce disparity substantially for a small loss in accuracy.\n",
"\n",
"By clicking on individual models on the plot, we can inspect their metrics for disparity and accuracy in greater detail. In a real example, we would then pick the model which represented the best trade-off between accuracy and disparity given the relevant business constraints."
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": []
}
],
"metadata": {
"kernelspec": {
"display_name": "Python 3",
"language": "python",
"name": "python3"
},
"language_info": {
"codemirror_mode": {
"name": "ipython",
"version": 3
},
"file_extension": ".py",
"mimetype": "text/x-python",
"name": "python",
"nbconvert_exporter": "python",
"pygments_lexer": "ipython3",
"version": "3.6.9"
}
},
"nbformat": 4,
"nbformat_minor": 2
}
|