More Like this

1. Metric-Fair Classifier Derandomization

   Wu, Jimmy; Chen, Yatong; Liu, Yang (January 2022, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML))

   We study the problem of classifier derandomization in machine learning: given a stochastic binary classifier f:X→[0,1], sample a deterministic classifier f̂ :X→{0,1} that approximates the output of f in aggregate over any data distribution. Recent work revealed how to efficiently derandomize a stochastic classifier with strong output approximation guarantees, but at the cost of individual fairness -- that is, if f treated similar inputs similarly, f̂ did not. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of classifier derandomization with metric fairness guarantees. We show that the prior derandomization approach is almost maximally metric-unfair, and that a simple ``random threshold'' derandomization achieves optimal fairness preservation but with weaker output approximation. We then devise a derandomization procedure that provides an appealing tradeoff between these two: if f is α-metric fair according to a metric d with a locality-sensitive hash (LSH) family, then our derandomized f̂ is, with high probability, O(α)-metric fair and a close approximation of f. We also prove generic results applicable to all (fair and unfair) classifier derandomization procedures, including a bias-variance decomposition and reductions between various notions of metric fairness. 

   more » « less
2. CertiFair: A Framework for Certified Global Fairness of Neural Networks

   https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i7.25994  

   Khedr, Haitham; Shoukry, Yasser (June 2023, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

   We consider the problem of whether a Neural Network (NN) model satisfies global individual fairness. Individual Fairness (defined in (Dwork et al. 2012)) suggests that similar individuals with respect to a certain task are to be treated similarly by the decision model. In this work, we have two main objectives. The first is to construct a verifier which checks whether the fairness property holds for a given NN in a classification task or provides a counterexample if it is violated, i.e., the model is fair if all similar individuals are classified the same, and unfair if a pair of similar individuals are classified differently. To that end, we construct a sound and complete verifier that verifies global individual fairness properties of ReLU NN classifiers using distance-based similarity metrics. The second objective of this paper is to provide a method for training provably fair NN classifiers from unfair (biased) data. We propose a fairness loss that can be used during training to enforce fair outcomes for similar individuals. We then provide provable bounds on the fairness of the resulting NN. We run experiments on commonly used fairness datasets that are publicly available and we show that global individual fairness can be improved by 96 % without a significant drop in test accuracy. 

   more » « less
3. Achieving Fair Treatment in Algorithmic Classification

   Andrew, Morgan (January 2018, Theory of Cryptography Conference)

   Fairness in classification has become an increasingly relevant and controversial issue as com- puters replace humans in many of today’s classification tasks. In particular, a subject of much recent debate is that of finding, and subsequently achieving, suitable definitions of fairness in an algorithmic context. In this work, following the work of Hardt et al. (NIPS’16), we consider and formalize the task of sanitizing an unfair classifier C into a classifier C′ satisfying an approximate notion of “equalized odds” or fair treatment. Our main result shows how to take any (possibly unfair) classifier C over a finite outcome space, and transform it—by just perturbing the out- put of C—according to some distribution learned by just having black-box access to samples of labeled, and previously classified, data, to produce a classifier C′ that satisfies fair treatment; we additionally show that our derived classifier is near-optimal in terms of accuracy. We also experimentally evaluate the performance of our method. 

   more » « less
4. Fairness Under Composition

   Dwork, C; Ilvento, C (January 2019, 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2019))

   Blum, A (Ed.)

   Algorithmic fairness, and in particular the fairness of scoring and classification algorithms, has become a topic of increasing social concern and has recently witnessed an explosion of research in theoretical computer science, machine learning, statistics, the social sciences, and law. Much of the literature considers the case of a single classifier (or scoring function) used once, in isolation. In this work, we initiate the study of the fairness properties of systems composed of algorithms that are fair in isolation; that is, we study fairness under composition. We identify pitfalls of naïve composition and give general constructions for fair composition, demonstrating both that classifiers that are fair in isolation do not necessarily compose into fair systems and also that seemingly unfair components may be carefully combined to construct fair systems. We focus primarily on the individual fairness setting proposed in [Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, Zemel, 2011], but also extend our results to a large class of group fairness definitions popular in the recent literature, exhibiting several cases in which group fairness definitions give misleading signals under composition. 

   more » « less
5. Online Learning with an Unknown Fairness Metric

   Gillen, S; Jung, C; Kearns, M; Roth, A (January 2019, Neural information Processing Systems (NeurIPS))

   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, 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 T, while obtaining an optimal O(√T) regret bound to the best fair policy. 

   more » « less