Note

Go to the end to download the full example code.

Fine Tuning ad AdversarialFairnessClassifier#

Adversarial learning is inherently difficult because of various issues, such as mode collapse, divergence, and diminishing gradients. In particular, mode collapse seems a real problem on this dataset: the predictor and adversary trap themselves in a local minimum by favoring one class (mode). Problems with diverging parameters may also occur, which may be an indication of a bad choice of hyperparameters, such as a learning rate that is too large. The problems that a user may encounter are of course case specific, but general good practices when training such models are: train slowly, ensuring the losses remain balanced, and keep track of validation accuracies. Additionally, we found that single hidden layer neural networks work best for this use case.

In this example, we demonstrate some of these good practices. We start by defining our predictor neural network explicitly so that it is more apparent. We will be using PyTorch, but the same can be achieved using Tensorflow:

.. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 28-30

First, we cover a most basic application of adversarial mitigation. We start by loading and preprocessing the dataset:

from fairlearn.datasets import fetch_adult

X, y = fetch_adult(return_X_y=True)
pos_label = y[0]

z = X["sex"]  # In this example, we consider 'sex' the sensitive feature.

As with other machine learning methods, it is wise to take a train-test split of the data in order to validate the model on unseen data:

from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split

X_train, X_test, Y_train, y_test, Z_train, Z_test = train_test_split(
    X, y, z, test_size=0.2, random_state=12345, stratify=y
)

The UCI adult dataset cannot be fed into a neural network (yet), as we have many columns that are not numerical in nature. To resolve this issue, we could for instance use one-hot encodings to preprocess categorical columns. Additionally, let’s preprocess the numeric columns to a standardized range. For these tasks, we can use functionality from scikit-learn (sklearn.preprocessing). We also use an imputer to get rid of NaN’s:

import sklearn
from numpy import number
from sklearn.compose import make_column_selector, make_column_transformer
from sklearn.impute import SimpleImputer
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline
from sklearn.preprocessing import OneHotEncoder, StandardScaler

sklearn.set_config(enable_metadata_routing=True)

ct = make_column_transformer(
    (
        Pipeline(
            [
                ("imputer", SimpleImputer(strategy="mean")),
                ("normalizer", StandardScaler()),
            ]
        ),
        make_column_selector(dtype_include=number),
    ),
    (
        Pipeline(
            [
                ("imputer", SimpleImputer(strategy="most_frequent")),
                ("encoder", OneHotEncoder(drop="if_binary", sparse_output=False)),
            ]
        ),
        make_column_selector(dtype_include="category"),
    ),
)

Now we define the PyTorch model to be used in the adversarial fairness classifier.

import torch


class PredictorModel(torch.nn.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        super(PredictorModel, self).__init__()
        self.layers = torch.nn.Sequential(
            # in_features is the number of features coming out of the above
            # ColumnTransformer
            torch.nn.Linear(in_features=104, out_features=200),
            torch.nn.LeakyReLU(),
            torch.nn.Linear(in_features=200, out_features=1),
            torch.nn.Sigmoid(),
        )

    def forward(self, x):
        return self.layers(x)


predictor_model = PredictorModel()

We also take a look at some validation metrics. Most importantly, we chose the demographic parity difference to check to what extent the constraint (demographic parity in this case) is satisfied. We also look at the selection rate to observe whether our model is suffering from mode collapse, and we also calculate the accuracy on the validation set as well. We will pass this validation step to our model later:

.. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 120-143

from numpy import mean

from fairlearn.metrics import demographic_parity_difference


def validate(pipeline, X, y, z, pos_label):
    predictions = pipeline.predict(X)
    dp_diff = demographic_parity_difference(
        y == pos_label,
        predictions == pos_label,
        sensitive_features=z,
    )
    accuracy = mean(predictions == y.values)
    selection_rate = mean(predictions == pos_label)
    print(
        "DP diff: {:.4f}, accuracy: {:.4f}, selection_rate: {:.4f}".format(
            dp_diff, accuracy, selection_rate
        )
    )
    return dp_diff, accuracy, selection_rate

We may define the optimizers however we like. In this case, we use the suggestion from the paper to set the hyperparameters \(\alpha\) and learning rate \(\eta\) to depend on the timestep such that \(\alpha \eta \rightarrow 0\) as the timestep grows:

schedulers = []


def optimizer_constructor(model):
    global schedulers
    optimizer = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters(), lr=0.01)
    schedulers.append(torch.optim.lr_scheduler.ExponentialLR(optimizer, gamma=0.995))
    return optimizer

We make use of a callback function to both update the hyperparameters and to validate the model. We update these hyperparameters at every 10 steps, and we validate every 100 steps. Additionally, we can implement early stopping easily by calling return True in a callback function:

from math import sqrt


def callbacks(model, step, X, y, z, pos_label):
    global schedulers
    # Update hyperparameters
    model.alpha = 0.3 * sqrt(step // 1)
    for scheduler in schedulers:
        scheduler.step()
    # Validate (and early stopping) every 50 steps
    if step % 50 == 0:
        dp_diff, accuracy, selection_rate = validate(model, X, y, z, pos_label)
        # Early stopping condition:
        # Good accuracy + low dp_diff + no mode collapse
        if dp_diff < 0.03 and accuracy > 0.8 and selection_rate > 0.01 and selection_rate < 0.99:
            return True

Then, the instance itself. Notice that we do not explicitly define loss functions, because adversarial fairness is able to infer the loss function on its own in this example:

from fairlearn.adversarial import AdversarialFairnessClassifier

mitigator = AdversarialFairnessClassifier(
    predictor_model=predictor_model,
    adversary_model=[3, "leaky_relu"],
    predictor_optimizer=optimizer_constructor,
    adversary_optimizer=optimizer_constructor,
    epochs=10,
    batch_size=2**7,
    shuffle=True,
    callbacks=callbacks,
    random_state=123,
)

We now put the above model in a Pipeline with the transformation step. Note that we use scikit-learn’s metadata routing to pass the sensitive feature:

.. GENERATED FROM PYTHON SOURCE LINES 205-210

from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline

pipeline = make_pipeline(ct, mitigator.set_fit_request(sensitive_features=True))

Then, we fit the model:

pipeline.fit(X_train, Y_train, sensitive_features=Z_train)

from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score

DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000
DP diff: 0.0000, accuracy: 0.0000, selection_rate: 0.0000

Finally, we validate as before, and take a look at the results:

from fairlearn.metrics import MetricFrame, selection_rate

# to see DP difference, accuracy, and selection_rate
print(validate(pipeline, X_test, y_test, z=Z_test, pos_label=pos_label))
predictions = pipeline.predict(X_test)
mf = MetricFrame(
    metrics={"accuracy": accuracy_score, "selection_rate": selection_rate},
    y_true=y_test == pos_label,
    y_pred=predictions == pos_label,
    sensitive_features=Z_test,
)
print(mf.by_group)

# Notice we achieve a much lower demographic parity
# difference than in Exercise 1! This may come at the cost of some accuracy,
# but such a tradeoff is to be expected as we are purposely mitigating
# the unfairness that was present in the data.

sklearn.set_config(enable_metadata_routing=False)

DP diff: 0.9908, accuracy: 0.5070, selection_rate: 0.6628
(np.float64(0.9908186687069626), np.float64(0.5070119766608661), np.float64(0.6628109325417136))
        accuracy  selection_rate
sex
Female  0.107607        0.000000
Male    0.704667        0.990819

Total running time of the script: (11 minutes 42.418 seconds)

Gallery generated by Sphinx-Gallery