System and method for mitigating bias in classification scores generated by machine learning models
US-2024312198-A1 · Sep 19, 2024 · US
US12481895B2 · US · B2
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Publication number | US-12481895-B2 |
| Application number | US-202117213167-A |
| Country | US |
| Kind code | B2 |
| Filing date | Mar 25, 2021 |
| Priority date | Mar 25, 2021 |
| Publication date | Nov 25, 2025 |
| Grant date | Nov 25, 2025 |
A practical reading order for non-experts. Skip the full description unless you need deep technical detail.
What the patent document calls the invention.
A short plain-language summary of the technical disclosure.
Who owns or filed the patent and who is credited as inventor.
Filing, priority, publication, and grant dates set the timeline.
The legal scope of protection — read this for what is actually claimed.
Technology tags used to group this patent with similar filings.
Prior art links and similar publications in this corpus.
Official abstract text for this publication.
Obtain a first data set, a second data set, and a machine learning model. Construct a sensitive subspace of the first data set that defines a fair metric for distance among elements of the first data set. Fairly train the machine learning model on the first data set using a distributionally robust optimization approach based on the fair metric. Produce an individually fair set of labels by applying the fairly trained machine learning model to the second data set. Allocate a resource according to the individually fair set of labels.
Opening claim text (preview).
What is claimed is: 1 . A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a first data set, a second data set, and a machine learning model; constructing a subspace of the first data set that defines a metric for distance among elements of the first data set, wherein the metric ignores protected attributes in measuring a difference between samples to allow for free movement in a corresponding space; training the machine learning model on the first data set using a distributionally robust optimization approach based on the metric, wherein the distributionally robust optimization approach includes a regularization approach based on the metric and wherein the training of the machine learning model comprises defining an iteration of a loss matrix R, finding a solution to an optimization problem by executing a linear program on the iteration of the loss matrix, and assigning a distribution for inputs and outputs of the machine learning model, based on the solution to the optimization problem; producing an individually fair set of labels by applying the trained machine learning model to the second data set; and allocating a resource according to the individually fair set of labels. 2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein training of the machine learning model further comprises: defining a cost matrix C for the machine learning model; entering an iterative loop; in the loop: fitting a base learner to pseudo-residuals of a loss function of the machine learning model, based on the distribution for inputs and outputs of the machine learning model; and updating a candidate classifier of the machine learning model, based on the loss function; repeating the loop until a final iteration produces a finally updated candidate classifier; and returning the finally updated candidate classifier as the trained model. 3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , wherein updating the candidate classifier comprises applying a gradient boosted descent algorithm to a decision tree of the model. 4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , wherein the loss matrix R is defined as R i,j = ( h ,( x i ,y j )), being the loss, h being the score of input x i , y j being the output of the machine learning model for input x j . 5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , wherein a cost function c of the cost matrix is defined as c (( x 1 ,y 1 ),( x 2 ,y 2 ))= d x 2 ( x 1 ,x 2 )+∞·1 {y 1 ≠y 2 } . x being inputs to the machine learning model, y being outputs from the machine learning model, d x 2 being the square of a distance function on the metric. 6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , wherein the robust loss function L(f) of the model is defined as L ( f ) = sup Q : ( Q , P n ) ≤ ε 𝔼 Q [ ( f , ℨ ) ] , Q being an expected value on the distribution Q of counterfactual inputs that are as close as possible to the actual inputs P while having different scores, W being an I-Wasserstein distance between distributions Q on and P on 0 , ϵ being a budget for distance. 7 . A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a first data set, a second data set, and a machine learning model; constructing a subspace of the first data set that defines a metric for distance among elements of the first data set, wherein the metric ignores protected attributes in measuring a difference between samples to allow for free movement in a corresponding space; training the machine learning model on the first data set using a distributionally robust optimization approach based on the metric, wherein the distributionally robust optimization approach includes a regularization approach based on the metric, wherein the regularization approach comprises updating constraints λ using a first gradient descent technique, setting λ no less than zero and updating weights θ of the machine learning model using a second gradient descent technique; producing an individually fair set of labels by applying the trained machine learning model to the second data set; and allocating a resource according to the individually fair set of labels. 8 . The computer-implemented method of claim 7 , wherein the regularization approach comprises: defining a fair regularizer for the machine learning model as the solution of an optimization problem; entering a conditional loop that continues until convergence of a stochastic algorithm for solving the optimization problem; in the loop: sampling a mini-batch from the first data set x and from a corresponding first label set; generating counterfactual data x′ by maximizing a difference in score from each x t of x to each x t ′ of x □ ′, within the constraints λ such that distance between x and x′ is minimized; exiting the loop when the updated weights θ converge to produce the trained machine learning model; and returning the fully trained machine learning model, wherein the updating the constraints λ and the updating the weights θ are performed within the loop. 9 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , wherein the fair regularizer R(h) is defined as R ( h ) = △ { sup Π ∈ Δ ( 𝒳 × 𝒳 ) 𝔼 Π
Generating training patterns; Bootstrap methods, e.g. bagging or boosting · CPC title
Matching criteria, e.g. proximity measures · CPC title
Feedforward networks · CPC title
Generative networks · CPC title
Supervised learning · CPC title
Related publications grouped by family.
Answers are generated from the same data shown on this page.