Search for: All records

This paper introduces a novel information-theoretic perspective on the relationship between prominent group fairness notions in machine learning, namely statistical parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity. It is well known that simultaneous satisfiability of these three fairness notions is usually impossible, motivating practitioners to resort to approximate fairness solutions rather than stringent satisfiability of these definitions. However, a comprehensive analysis of their interrelations, particularly when they are not exactly satisfied, remains largely unexplored. Our main contribution lies in elucidating an exact relationship between these three measures of (un)fairness by leveraging a body of work in information theory called partial information decomposition (PID). In this work, we leverage PID to identify the granular regions where these three measures of (un)fairness overlap and where they disagree with each other leading to potential tradeoffs. We also include numerical simulations to complement our results. 

This work presents an information-theoretic perspective to group fairness trade-offs in federated learning (FL) with respect to sensitive attributes, such as gender, race, etc. Existing works often focus on either global fairness (overall disparity of the model across all clients) or local fairness (disparity of the model at each client), without always considering their trade-offs. There is a lack of understanding regarding the interplay between global and local fairness in FL, particularly under data heterogeneity, and if and when one implies the other. To address this gap, we leverage a body of work in information theory called partial information decomposition (PID), which first identifies three sources of unfairness in FL, namely, Unique Disparity, Redundant Disparity, and Masked Disparity. We demonstrate how these three disparities contribute to global and local fairness using canonical examples. This decomposition helps us derive fundamental limits on the trade-off between global and local fairness, highlighting where they agree or disagree. We introduce the Accuracy and Global-Local Fairness Optimality Problem (AGLFOP), a convex optimization that defines the theoretical limits of accuracy and fairness trade-offs, identifying the best possible performance any FL strategy can attain given a dataset and client distribution. We also present experimental results on synthetic datasets and the ADULT dataset to support our theoretical findings. 

There is an emerging interest in generating robust algorithmic recourse that would remain valid if the model is updated or changed even slightly. Towards finding robust algorithmic recourse (or counterfactual explanations), existing literature often assumes that the original model m and the new model M are bounded in the parameter space, i.e., ||Params(M)−Params(m)||<Δ. However, models can often change significantly in the parameter space with little to no change in their predictions or accuracy on the given dataset. In this work, we introduce a mathematical abstraction termed naturally-occurring model change, which allows for arbitrary changes in the parameter space such that the change in predictions on points that lie on the data manifold is limited. Next, we propose a measure – that we call Stability – to quantify the robustness of counterfactuals to potential model changes for differentiable models, e.g., neural networks. Our main contribution is to show that counterfactuals with sufficiently high value of Stability as defined by our measure will remain valid after potential “naturally-occurring” model changes with high probability (leveraging concentration bounds for Lipschitz function of independent Gaussians). Since our quantification depends on the local Lipschitz constant around a data point which is not always available, we also examine estimators of our proposed measure and derive a fundamental lower bound on the sample size required to have a precise estimate. We explore methods of using stability measures to generate robust counterfactuals that are close, realistic, and remain valid after potential model changes. This work also has interesting connections with model multiplicity, also known as the Rashomon effect.