An Accounting Identity for Algorithmic Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20217v1
• Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 03:38:15 GMT
• Title: An Accounting Identity for Algorithmic Fairness
• Authors: Hadi Elzayn, Jacob Goldin,
• Abstract summary: We derive an accounting identity for predictive models that links accuracy with common fairness criteria.<n>For binary outcomes, this budget is the model's mean-squared error times the difference in group prevalence across outcome classes.
• Score: 1.1172382217477128
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We derive an accounting identity for predictive models that links accuracy with common fairness criteria. The identity shows that for globally calibrated models, the weighted sums of miscalibration within groups and error imbalance across groups is equal to a "total unfairness budget." For binary outcomes, this budget is the model's mean-squared error times the difference in group prevalence across outcome classes. The identity nests standard impossibility results as special cases, while also describing inherent tradeoffs when one or more fairness measures are not perfectly satisfied. The results suggest that accuracy and fairness are best viewed as complements in binary prediction tasks: increasing accuracy necessarily shrinks the total unfairness budget and vice-versa. Experiments on benchmark data confirm the theory and show that many fairness interventions largely substitute between fairness violations, and when they reduce accuracy they tend to expand the total unfairness budget. The results extend naturally to prediction tasks with non-binary outcomes, illustrating how additional outcome information can relax fairness incompatibilities and identifying conditions under which the binary-style impossibility does and does not extend to regression tasks.

Related papers

• Fix Representation (Optimally) Before Fairness: Finite-Sample Shrinkage Population Correction and the True Price of Fairness Under Subpopulation Shift [0.0]
  Machine learning practitioners frequently observe tension between predictive accuracy and group fairness constraints.<n>We show that both phenomena can be artifacts of training data that misrepresents subgroup proportions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T14:32:05Z)
• The Statistical Fairness-Accuracy Frontier [50.323024516295725]
  Machine learning models must balance accuracy and fairness, but these goals often conflict.<n>A useful tool for understanding this trade-off is the fairness-accuracy frontier, which characterizes the set of models that cannot be simultaneously improved in both fairness and accuracy.<n>We study the FA frontier in the finite-sample regime, showing how it deviates from its population counterpart and quantifying the worst-case gap between them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T03:01:35Z)
• FairlyUncertain: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Uncertainty in Algorithmic Fairness [4.14360329494344]
  We introduce FairlyUncertain, an axiomatic benchmark for evaluating uncertainty estimates in fairness. Our benchmark posits that fair predictive uncertainty estimates should be consistent across learning pipelines and calibrated to observed randomness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T20:15:29Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Equal Opportunity of Coverage in Fair Regression [50.76908018786335]
  We study fair machine learning (ML) under predictive uncertainty to enable reliable and trustworthy decision-making. We propose Equal Opportunity of Coverage (EOC) that aims to achieve two properties: (1) coverage rates for different groups with similar outcomes are close, and (2) the coverage rate for the entire population remains at a predetermined level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T21:19:59Z)
• Arbitrariness Lies Beyond the Fairness-Accuracy Frontier [3.383670923637875]
  We show that state-of-the-art fairness interventions can mask high predictive multiplicity behind favorable group fairness and accuracy metrics. We propose an ensemble algorithm applicable to any fairness intervention that provably ensures more consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T18:15:46Z)
• RobustFair: Adversarial Evaluation through Fairness Confusion Directed Gradient Search [8.278129731168127]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) often face challenges due to their vulnerability to various adversarial perturbations. This paper introduces a novel approach, RobustFair, to evaluate the accurate fairness of DNNs when subjected to false or biased perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T12:07:29Z)
• Fairness through Aleatoric Uncertainty [18.95295731419523]
  We introduce the idea of leveraging aleatoric uncertainty (e.g., data ambiguity) to improve the fairness-utility trade-off. Our central hypothesis is that aleatoric uncertainty is a key factor for algorithmic fairness. We then propose a principled model to improve fairness when aleatoric uncertainty is high and improve utility elsewhere.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T13:50:57Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Improving Adaptive Conformal Prediction Using Self-Supervised Learning [72.2614468437919]
  We train an auxiliary model with a self-supervised pretext task on top of an existing predictive model and use the self-supervised error as an additional feature to estimate nonconformity scores. We empirically demonstrate the benefit of the additional information using both synthetic and real data on the efficiency (width), deficit, and excess of conformal prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T18:57:14Z)
• On Comparing Fair Classifiers under Data Bias [42.43344286660331]
  We study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Our experiments show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T13:04:46Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• Beyond calibration: estimating the grouping loss of modern neural networks [68.8204255655161]
  Proper scoring rule theory shows that given the calibration loss, the missing piece to characterize individual errors is the grouping loss. We show that modern neural network architectures in vision and NLP exhibit grouping loss, notably in distribution shifts settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T07:04:20Z)
• Fast Fair Regression via Efficient Approximations of Mutual Information [0.0]
  This paper introduces fast approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency group fairness criteria for regression models. It uses such approximations as regularisers to enforce fairness within a regularised risk minimisation framework. Experiments in real-world datasets indicate that in spite of its superior computational efficiency our algorithm still displays state-of-the-art accuracy/fairness tradeoffs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-14T08:50:51Z)

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.