Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02237v1
• Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:47:34 GMT
• Title: Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiency
• Authors: Joachim Baumann, Anik\'o Hann\'ak, Christoph Heitz
• Abstract summary: This paper focuses on the fairness concepts of PPV parity, false omission rate (FOR) parity, and sufficiency. We show that group-specific threshold rules are optimal for PPV parity and FOR parity. We also provide a solution for the optimal decision rules satisfying the fairness constraint sufficiency.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Binary decision making classifiers are not fair by default. Fairness requirements are an additional element to the decision making rationale, which is typically driven by maximizing some utility function. In that sense, algorithmic fairness can be formulated as a constrained optimization problem. This paper contributes to the discussion on how to implement fairness, focusing on the fairness concepts of positive predictive value (PPV) parity, false omission rate (FOR) parity, and sufficiency (which combines the former two). We show that group-specific threshold rules are optimal for PPV parity and FOR parity, similar to well-known results for other group fairness criteria. However, depending on the underlying population distributions and the utility function, we find that sometimes an upper-bound threshold rule for one group is optimal: utility maximization under PPV parity (or FOR parity) might thus lead to selecting the individuals with the smallest utility for one group, instead of selecting the most promising individuals. This result is counter-intuitive and in contrast to the analogous solutions for statistical parity and equality of opportunity. We also provide a solution for the optimal decision rules satisfying the fairness constraint sufficiency. We show that more complex decision rules are required and that this leads to within-group unfairness for all but one of the groups. We illustrate our findings based on simulated and real data.

Related papers

• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Assessing Group Fairness with Social Welfare Optimization [0.9217021281095907]
  This paper explores whether a broader conception of social justice, based on optimizing a social welfare function, can be useful for assessing various definitions of parity. We show that it can justify demographic parity or equalized odds under certain conditions, but frequently requires a departure from these types of parity. In addition, we find that predictive rate parity is of limited usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T01:41:04Z)
• Boosting Fair Classifier Generalization through Adaptive Priority Reweighing [59.801444556074394]
  A performance-promising fair algorithm with better generalizability is needed. This paper proposes a novel adaptive reweighing method to eliminate the impact of the distribution shifts between training and test data on model generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T13:04:55Z)
• Fairness via Adversarial Attribute Neighbourhood Robust Learning [49.93775302674591]
  We propose a principled underlineRobust underlineAdversarial underlineAttribute underlineNeighbourhood (RAAN) loss to debias the classification head.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-12T23:39:28Z)
• Individual Fairness under Varied Notions of Group Fairness in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All [1.9963683296786414]
  We study the assignment of items to platforms that satisfies both group and individual fairness constraints. Our approach explores a best of both worlds fairness' solution to get a randomized matching. We present two additional approximation algorithms that users can choose from to balance group fairness and individual fairness trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-21T19:33:36Z)
• Fair Bayes-Optimal Classifiers Under Predictive Parity [33.648053823193855]
  This paper considers predictive parity, which requires equalizing the probability of success given a positive prediction among different protected groups. We propose an algorithm we call FairBayes-DPP, aiming to ensure predictive parity when our condition is satisfied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-15T04:58:10Z)
• Probabilistic Permutation Graph Search: Black-Box Optimization for Fairness in Ranking [53.94413894017409]
  We present a novel way of representing permutation distributions, based on the notion of permutation graphs. Similar to PL, our distribution representation, called PPG, can be used for black-box optimization of fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-28T20:38:34Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
• Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness [48.76267073341723]
  We define conditional fairness as a more sound fairness metric by conditioning on the fairness variables. We propose a Derivable Conditional Fairness Regularizer (DCFR) to track the trade-off between precision and fairness of algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T12:56:28Z)
• Genetic programming approaches to learning fair classifiers [4.901632310846025]
  We discuss current approaches to fairness and motivate proposals that incorporate fairness into genetic programming for classification. The first is to incorporate a fairness objective into multi-objective optimization. The second is to adapt lexicase selection to define cases dynamically over intersections of protected groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-28T04:20:25Z)
• Robust Optimization for Fairness with Noisy Protected Groups [85.13255550021495]
  We study the consequences of naively relying on noisy protected group labels. We introduce two new approaches using robust optimization. We show that the robust approaches achieve better true group fairness guarantees than the naive approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-21T14:58:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.