Developing classification algorithms that are fair with respect to sensitive attributes of the data is an important problem due to the increased deployment of classification algorithms in societ al contexts. Several recent works have focused on studying classification with respect to specific fairness metrics, modeled the corresponding fair classification problem as constrained optimization problems, and developed tailored algorithms to solve them. Despite this, there still remain important metrics for which there are no fair classifiers with theoretical guarantees; primarily because the resulting optimization problem is non-convex. The main contribution of this paper is a meta-algorithm for classification that can take as input a general class of fairness constraints with respect to multiple non-disjoint and multi-valued sensitive attributes, and which comes with provable guarantees. In particular, our algorithm can handle non-convex "linear fractional" constraints (which includes fairness constraints such as predictive parity) for which no prior algorithm was known. Key to our results is an algorithm for a family of classification problems with convex constraints along with a reduction from classification problems with linear fractional constraints to this family. Empirically, we observe that our algorithm is fast, can achieve near-perfect fairness with respect to various fairness metrics, and the loss in accuracy due to the imposed fairness constraints is often small.
Another approach is to propose other fairness metrics as a proxy of statistical parity or equalized odds, e.g., @cite_38 @cite_31 @cite_48 . @cite_38 @cite_31 proposed a covariance-type constraint for statistical parity and equalized odds. The third approach post-processes a baseline classifier by shifting the decision boundary (can be different for different groups), e.g., @cite_3 @cite_32 @cite_54 @cite_50 @cite_39 @cite_22 . These approaches modify the constrained classification problem.
@cite_38 @cite_22 @cite_48 @cite_54 @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_39 @cite_50 @cite_31
2788842311 2902208421 2768894107 2126022166
We consider the problem of online learning in the linear contextual bandits setting, but in which there are also strong individual fairness constraints governed by an unknown similarity metric. These constraints demand that we select similar actions or individuals with approximately equal probability (arXiv:1104.3913), which may be at odds with optimizing reward, thus modeling settings where profit and social policy are in tension. We assume we learn about an unknown Mahalanobis similarity metric from only weak feedback that identifies fairness violations, but does not quantify their extent. This is intended to represent the interventions of a regulator who "knows unfairness when he sees it" but nevertheless cannot enunciate a quantitative fairness metric over individuals. Our main result is an algorithm in the adversarial context setting that has a number of fairness violations that depends only logarithmically on @math , while obtaining an optimal @math regret bound to the best fair policy. Motivated by settings in which predictive models may be required to be non-discriminatory with respect to certain attributes (such as race), but even collecting the sensitive attribute may be forbidden or restricted, we initiate the study of fair learning under the constraint of differential privacy. We design two learning algorithms that simultaneously promise differential privacy and equalized odds, a 'fairness' condition that corresponds to equalizing false positive and negative rates across protected groups. Our first algorithm is a private implementation of the equalized odds post-processing approach of [, 2016]. This algorithm is appealingly simple, but must be able to use protected group membership explicitly at test time, which can be viewed as a form of 'disparate treatment'. Our second algorithm is a differentially private version of the oracle-efficient in-processing approach of [, 2018] that can be used to find the optimal fair classifier, given access to a subroutine that can solve the original (not necessarily fair) learning problem. This algorithm is more complex but need not have access to protected group membership at test time. We identify new tradeoffs between fairness, accuracy, and privacy that emerge only when requiring all three properties, and show that these tradeoffs can be milder if group membership may be used at test time. We conclude with a brief experimental evaluation. The most prevalent notions of fairness in machine learning are statistical definitions: they fix a small collection of pre-defined groups, and then ask for parity of some statistic of the classifier across these groups. Constraints of this form are susceptible to intentional or inadvertent "fairness gerrymandering", in which a classifier appears to be fair on each individual group, but badly violates the fairness constraint on one or more structured subgroups defined over the protected attributes. We propose instead to demand statistical notions of fairness across exponentially (or infinitely) many subgroups, defined by a structured class of functions over the protected attributes. This interpolates between statistical definitions of fairness and recently proposed individual notions of fairness, but raises several computational challenges. It is no longer clear how to audit a fixed classifier to see if it satisfies such a strong definition of fairness. We prove that the computational problem of auditing subgroup fairness for both equality of false positive rates and statistical parity is equivalent to the problem of weak agnostic learning, which means it is computationally hard in the worst case, even for simple structured subclasses. We then derive two algorithms that provably converge to the best fair classifier, given access to oracles which can solve the agnostic learning problem. The algorithms are based on a formulation of subgroup fairness as a two-player zero-sum game between a Learner and an Auditor. Our first algorithm provably converges in a polynomial number of steps. Our second algorithm enjoys only provably asymptotic convergence, but has the merit of simplicity and faster per-step computation. We implement the simpler algorithm using linear regression as a heuristic oracle, and show that we can effectively both audit and learn fair classifiers on real datasets. This paper studies two-class (or binary) classification of elements X in R k that allows for a reject option. Based on n independent copies of the pair of random variables (X,Y ) with X 2 R k and Y 2 0,1 , we consider classifiers f(X) that render three possible outputs: 0, 1 and R. The option R expresses doubt and is to be used for few observations that are hard to classify in an automatic way. Chow (1970) derived the optimal rule minimizing the risk P f(X) 6 Y, f(X) 6 R + dP f(X) = R . This risk function subsumes that the cost of making a wrong decision equals 1 and that of utilizing the reject option is d. We show that the classification problem hinges on the behavior of the regression function (x) = E(Y |X = x) near d and 1 d. (Here d 2 [0,1 2] as the other cases turn out to be trivial.) Classification rules can be categorized into plug-in estimators and empirical risk minimizers. Both types are considered here and we prove that the rates of convergence of the risk of any estimate depends on P | (X) d| + P | (X) (1 d)| and on the quality of the estimate for or an appropriate measure of the size of the class of classifiers, in case of plug-in rules and empirical risk minimizers, respectively. We extend the mathematical framework even further by dierentiating between costs associated with the two possible errors: predicting f(X) = 0 whilst Y = 1 and predicting f(X) = 1 whilst Y = 0. Such situations are common in, for instance, medical studies where misclassifying a sick patient as healthy is worse than the opposite.