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.
@cite_52 @cite_0 also provide a general framework to handle multiple fairness constraints. Quadrianto and Sharmanska @cite_0 encode fairness constraints as a distance between the distributions for different values of a single binary sensitive attribute, and then use the privileged learning framework to optimize loss with respect to fairness constraints. While this results in an interesting heuristic, they do not provide theoretical guarantees for their approach. @cite_52 give a method to compute a nearly optimal fair classifier with respect to linear fairness constraints, like demographic parity or equalized odds, by the Lagrangian method. However their framework does not support constraints on predictive parity (see Remark ).
@cite_0 @cite_52
2767437859 2790744245
Equipping machine learning models with ethical and legal constraints is a serious issue; without this, the future of machine learning is at risk. This paper takes a step forward in this direction and focuses on ensuring machine learning models deliver fair decisions. In legal scholarships, the notion of fairness itself is evolving and multi-faceted. We set an overarching goal to develop a unified machine learning framework that is able to handle any definitions of fairness, their combinations, and also new definitions that might be stipulated in the future. To achieve our goal, we recycle two well-established machine learning techniques, privileged learning and distribution matching, and harmonize them for satisfying multi-faceted fairness definitions. We consider protected characteristics such as race and gender as privileged information that is available at training but not at test time; this accelerates model training and delivers fairness through unawareness. Further, we cast demographic parity, equalized odds, and equality of opportunity as a classical two-sample problem of conditional distributions, which can be solved in a general form by using distance measures in Hilbert Space. We show several existing models are special cases of ours. Finally, we advocate returning the Pareto frontier of multi-objective minimization of error and unfairness in predictions. This will facilitate decision makers to select an operating point and to be accountable for it. We study fairness in classification, where individuals are classified, e.g., admitted to a university, and the goal is to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their membership in some group, while maintaining utility for the classifier (the university). The main conceptual contribution of this paper is a framework for fair classification comprising (1) a (hypothetical) task-specific metric for determining the degree to which individuals are similar with respect to the classification task at hand; (2) an algorithm for maximizing utility subject to the fairness constraint, that similar individuals are treated similarly. We also present an adaptation of our approach to achieve the complementary goal of "fair affirmative action," which guarantees statistical parity (i.e., the demographics of the set of individuals receiving any classification are the same as the demographics of the underlying population), while treating similar individuals as similarly as possible. Finally, we discuss the relationship of fairness to privacy: when fairness implies privacy, and how tools developed in the context of differential privacy may be applied to fairness. 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. We address the problem of algorithmic fairness: ensuring that sensitive variables do not unfairly influence the outcome of a classifier. We present an approach based on empirical risk minimization, which incorporates a fairness constraint into the learning problem. It encourages the conditional risk of the learned classifier to be approximately constant with respect to the sensitive variable. We derive both risk and fairness bounds that support the statistical consistency of our approach. We specify our approach to kernel methods and observe that the fairness requirement implies an orthogonality constraint which can be easily added to these methods. We further observe that for linear models the constraint translates into a simple data preprocessing step. Experiments indicate that the method is empirically effective and performs favorably against state-of-the-art approaches. In this work, we advocate for representation learning as the key to mitigating unfair prediction outcomes downstream. We envision a scenario where learned representations may be handed off to other entities with unknown objectives. We propose and explore adversarial representation learning as a natural method of ensuring those entities will act fairly, and connect group fairness (demographic parity, equalized odds, and equal opportunity) to different adversarial objectives. Through worst-case theoretical guarantees and experimental validation, we show that the choice of this objective is crucial to fair prediction. Furthermore, we present the first in-depth experimental demonstration of fair transfer learning, by showing that our learned representations admit fair predictions on new tasks while maintaining utility, an essential goal of fair representation learning. 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. In this paper, we introduce the Fairness GAN, an approach for generating a dataset that is plausibly similar to a given multimedia dataset, but is more fair with respect to protected attributes in allocative decision making. We propose a novel auxiliary classifier GAN that strives for demographic parity or equality of opportunity and show empirical results on several datasets, including the CelebFaces Attributes (CelebA) dataset, the Quick, Draw! dataset, and a dataset of soccer player images and the offenses they were called for. The proposed formulation is well-suited to absorbing unlabeled data; we leverage this to augment the soccer dataset with the much larger CelebA dataset. The methodology tends to improve demographic parity and equality of opportunity while generating plausible images. 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. Machine learning is now being used to make crucial decisions about people's lives. For nearly all of these decisions there is a risk that individuals of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other subpopulation are unfairly discriminated against. Our recent method has demonstrated how to use techniques from counterfactual inference to make predictions fair across different subpopulations. This method requires that one provides the causal model that generated the data at hand. In general, validating all causal implications of the model is not possible without further assumptions. Hence, it is desirable to integrate competing causal models to provide counterfactually fair decisions, regardless of which causal "world" is the correct one. In this paper, we show how it is possible to make predictions that are approximately fair with respect to multiple possible causal models at once, thus mitigating the problem of exact causal specification. We frame the goal of learning a fair classifier as an optimization problem with fairness constraints entailed by competing causal explanations. We show how this optimization problem can be efficiently solved using gradient-based methods. We demonstrate the flexibility of our model on two real-world fair classification problems. We show that our model can seamlessly balance fairness in multiple worlds with prediction accuracy. Max-Min Fairness is a flexible resource allocation mechanism used in most datacenter schedulers. However, an increasing number of jobs have hard placement constraints, restricting the machines they can run on due to special hardware or software requirements. It is unclear how to define, and achieve, max-min fairness in the presence of such constraints. We propose Constrained Max-Min Fairness (CMMF), an extension to max-min fairness that supports placement constraints, and show that it is the only policy satisfying an important property that incentivizes users to pool resources. Optimally computing CMMF is challenging, but we show that a remarkably simple online scheduler, called Choosy, approximates the optimal scheduler well. Through experiments, analysis, and simulations, we show that Choosy on average differs 2 from the optimal CMMF allocation, and lets jobs achieve their fair share quickly. Recidivism prediction scores are used across the USA to determine sentencing and supervision for hundreds of thousands of inmates. One such generator of recidivism prediction scores is Northpointe's Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) score, used in states like California and Florida, which past research has shown to be biased against black inmates according to certain measures of fairness. To counteract this racial bias, we present an adversarially-trained neural network that predicts recidivism and is trained to remove racial bias. When comparing the results of our model to COMPAS, we gain predictive accuracy and get closer to achieving two out of three measures of fairness: parity and equality of odds. Our model can be generalized to any prediction and demographic. This piece of research contributes an example of scientific replication and simplification in a high-stakes real-world application like recidivism prediction. Optimization models with non-convex constraints arise in many tasks in machine learning, e.g., learning with fairness constraints or Neyman-Pearson classification with non-convex loss. Although many efficient methods have been developed with theoretical convergence guarantees for non-convex unconstrained problems, it remains a challenge to design provably efficient algorithms for problems with non-convex functional constraints. This paper proposes a class of subgradient methods for constrained optimization where the objective function and the constraint functions are are weakly convex. Our methods solve a sequence of strongly convex subproblems, where a proximal term is added to both the objective function and each constraint function. Each subproblem can be solved by various algorithms for strongly convex optimization. Under a uniform Slater's condition, we establish the computation complexities of our methods for finding a nearly stationary point. We present a systematic approach for achieving fairness in a binary classification setting. While we focus on two well-known quantitative definitions of fairness, our approach encompasses many other previously studied definitions as special cases. The key idea is to reduce fair classification to a sequence of cost-sensitive classification problems, whose solutions yield a randomized classifier with the lowest (empirical) error subject to the desired constraints. We introduce two reductions that work for any representation of the cost-sensitive classifier and compare favorably to prior baselines on a variety of data sets, while overcoming several of their disadvantages. This paper analyzes spectrum sharing between multiple systems. The efficiency of spectrum sharing is determined primarily by interference, which is a function of the spatial densities of the transmitters in systems dependent on the chosen spectrum sharing method. One method is underlay, which allows all systems to concurrently use the whole spectrum, and the other is overlay, in which a system only utilizes its own assigned spectrum. We define the spectrum-sharing transmission capacity (S-TC) as the number of successful transmissions per unit area subject to outage probability constraints for each system. To prevent some systems from monopolizing access to the spectrum, we also propose a fair coexistence constraint and derive the optimal spatial densities and relative transmission powers both with and without this constraint in terms of the sum S-TC. Through analytical results, the overlay and underlay methods are compared, verifying that the overlay method is generally preferred, and the underlay method is equally good only for optimal transmission power ratios under a fair coexistence constraint. We tackle the problem of algorithmic fairness, where the goal is to avoid the unfairly influence of sensitive information, in the general context of regression with possible continuous sensitive attributes. We extend the framework of fair empirical risk minimization to this general scenario, covering in this way the whole standard supervised learning setting. Our generalized fairness measure reduces to well known notions of fairness available in literature. We derive learning guarantees for our method, that imply in particular its statistical consistency, both in terms of the risk and the fairness measure. We then specialize our approach to kernel methods and propose a convex fair estimator in that setting. We test the estimator on a commonly used benchmark dataset (Communities and Crime) and on a new dataset collected at the University of Genova, containing the information of the academic career of five thousand students. The latter dataset provides a challenging real case scenario of unfair behaviour of standard regression methods that benefits from our methodology. The experimental results show that our estimator is effective at mitigating the trade-off between accuracy and fairness requirements. Algorithms are now regularly used to decide whether defendants awaiting trial are too dangerous to be released back into the community. In some cases, black defendants are substantially more likely than white defendants to be incorrectly classified as high risk. To mitigate such disparities, several techniques have recently been proposed to achieve algorithmic fairness. Here we reformulate algorithmic fairness as constrained optimization: the objective is to maximize public safety while satisfying formal fairness constraints designed to reduce racial disparities. We show that for several past definitions of fairness, the optimal algorithms that result require detaining defendants above race-specific risk thresholds. We further show that the optimal unconstrained algorithm requires applying a single, uniform threshold to all defendants. The unconstrained algorithm thus maximizes public safety while also satisfying one important understanding of equality: that all individuals are held to the same standard, irrespective of race. Because the optimal constrained and unconstrained algorithms generally differ, there is tension between improving public safety and satisfying prevailing notions of algorithmic fairness. By examining data from Broward County, Florida, we show that this trade-off can be large in practice. We focus on algorithms for pretrial release decisions, but the principles we discuss apply to other domains, and also to human decision makers carrying out structured decision rules. The adoption of automated, data-driven decision making in an ever expanding range of applications has raised concerns about its potential unfairness towards certain social groups. In this context, a number of recent studies have focused on defining, detecting, and removing unfairness from data-driven decision systems. However, the existing notions of fairness, based on parity (equality) in treatment or outcomes for different social groups, tend to be quite stringent, limiting the overall decision making accuracy. In this paper, we draw inspiration from the fair-division and envy-freeness literature in economics and game theory and propose preference-based notions of fairness -- given the choice between various sets of decision treatments or outcomes, any group of users would collectively prefer its treatment or outcomes, regardless of the (dis)parity as compared to the other groups. Then, we introduce tractable proxies to design margin-based classifiers that satisfy these preference-based notions of fairness. Finally, we experiment with a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets and show that preference-based fairness allows for greater decision accuracy than parity-based fairness. Max-min fairness is widely used in various areas of networking. In every case where it is used, there is a proof of existence and one or several algorithms for computing it; in most, but not all cases, they are based on the notion of bottlenecks. In spite of this wide applicability, there are still examples, arising in the context of wireless or peer-to-peer networks, where the existing theories do not seem to apply directly. In this paper, we give a unifying treatment of max-min fairness, which encompasses all existing results in a simplifying framework, and extend its applicability to new examples. First, we observe that the existence of max-min fairness is actually a geometric property of the set of feasible allocations. There exist sets on which max-min fairness does not exist, and we describe a large class of sets on which a max-min fair allo cation does exist. This class contains, but is not limited to the compact, convex sets of RN. Second, we give a general purpose centralized algorithm, called Max-min Programming, for computing the max-min fair allocation in all cases where it exists (whether the set of feasible allocations is in our class or not). Its complexity is of the order of N linear programming steps in RN, in the case where the feasible set is defined by linear constraints. We show that, if the set of feasible allocations has the free disposal property, then Max-min Programming reduces to a simpler algorithm, called Water Filling, whose complexity is much lower. Free disposal corresponds to the cases where a bottleneck argument can be made, andWater Filling is the general form of all previously known centralized algorithms for such cases. All our results apply mutatis mutandis to min-max fairness. Our results apply to weighted, unweighted and util-max-min and min-max fairness. Distributed algorithms for the computation of max-min fair allocations are outside the scope of this paper. Algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions about human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism. The sensitivity of these decisions has raised important questions about ensuring fairness in algorithmic decision making. Recent work has focused on addressing two aspects of fairness: distributional fairness, concerning the fairness of the outcomes of decision making, and procedural fairness, concerning the fairness of the decision-making process. Assessment of procedural fairness relies on human judgments, for example, about the fairness of using certain features in the algorithm making the decision. Yet to our knowledge, almost no prior work examines people’s perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making. We propose a framework for understanding why people perceive certain features as fair to be used in algorithms. We define a framework of eight underlying properties of features, such as relevance, volitionality and reliability, and hypothesize that people use these properties to form a heuristic for making moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making algorithms. We evaluate our framework through a series of scenario-based surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person’s assessment of the eight underlying properties in our exemplar scenario, we can predict if they will perceive a feature as fair to be used with at least 87 accuracy. We consider the problem of downlink scheduling for multiuser orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) systems. Opportunistic scheduling exploits the time-varying, location-dependent channel conditions to achieve multiuser diversity. Previous work in this area has focused on single-channel systems. Multiuser OFDM allows multiple users to transmit simultaneously over multiple channels. In this paper, we develop a rigorous framework to study opportunistic scheduling in multiuser OFDM systems. We derive optimal opportunistic scheduling policies under three QoS fairness constraints formultiuserOFDM systems--temporal fairness, utilitarian fairness, and minimum-performance guarantees. Our scheduler decides not only which time slot, but also which subcarrier to allocate to each user. Implementing these optimal policies involves solving a maximal bipartite matching problem at each scheduling time. To solve this problem efficiently, we apply a modified Hungarian algorithm and a simple suboptimal algorithm. Numerical results demonstrate that our schemes achieve significant improvement in system performance compared with nonopportunistic schemes.