Fairness Metrics

Perception is often viewed as a process that transforms physical variables, external to an observer, into internal psychological variables. Such a process can be modeled by a function coined *perceptual scale*. The *perceptual scale* can be deduced from psychophysical measurements that consist in comparing the relative differences between stimuli (i.e. difference scaling experiments). However, this approach is often overlooked by the modeling and experimentation communities. Here, we demonstrate the value of measuring the *perceptual scale* of classical (spatial frequency, orientation) and less classical physical variables (interpolation between textures) by embedding it in recent probabilistic modeling of perception. First, we show that the assumption that an observer has an internal representation of univariate parameters such as spatial frequency or orientation while stimuli are high-dimensional does not lead to contradictory predictions when following the theoretical framework. Second, we show that the measured *perceptual scale* corresponds to the transduction function hypothesized in this framework. In particular, we demonstrate that it is related to the Fisher information of the generative model that underlies perception and we test the predictions given by the generative model of different stimuli in a set a of difference scaling experiments. Our main conclusion is that the *perceptual scale* is mostly driven by the stimulus power spectrum. Finally, we propose that this measure of *perceptual scale* is a way to push further the notion of perceptual distances by estimating the perceptual geometry of images i.e. the path between images instead of simply the distance between those.

In the field of algorithmic fairness, significant attention has been put on group fairness criteria, such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Nevertheless, these objectives, measured as global averages, have raised concerns about persistent local disparities between sensitive groups. In this work, we address the problem of local fairness, which ensures that the predictor is unbiased not only in terms of expectations over the whole population, but also within any subregion of the feature space, unknown at training time. To enforce this objective, we introduce ROAD, a novel approach that leverages the Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) framework within a fair adversarial learning objective, where an adversary tries to infer the sensitive attribute from the predictions. Using an instance-level re-weighting strategy, ROAD is designed to prioritize inputs that are likely to be locally unfair, i.e. where the adversary faces the least difficulty in reconstructing the sensitive attribute. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method: it achieves Pareto dominance with respect to local fairness and accuracy for a given global fairness level across three standard datasets, and also enhances fairness generalization under distribution shift.

Learning to reject (L2R) is a classical problem where one seeks a classifier capable of abstaining on low-confidence samples. Most prior work on L2R has focused on minimizing the standard misclassification error. However, in many real-world applications, the label distribution is highly imbalanced, necessitating alternate evaluation metrics such as the balanced error or the worst-group error that enforce equitable performance across both the head and tail classes. In this paper, we establish that traditional L2R methods can be grossly sub-optimal for such metrics, and show that this is due to an intricate dependence in the objective between the label costs and the rejector. We then derive the form of the Bayes-optimal classifier and rejector for the balanced error, propose a novel plug-in approach to mimic this solution, and extend our results to general evaluation metrics. Through experiments on benchmark image classification tasks, we show that our approach yields better trade-offs in both the balanced and worst-group error compared to L2R baselines.

Federated learning is an emerging technology for training machine learning models across decentralized data sources without sharing data. Vertical federated learning, also known as feature-based federated learning, applies to scenarios where data sources have the same sample IDs but different feature sets. To ensure fairness among data owners, it is critical to objectively assess the contributions from different data sources and compensate the corresponding data owners accordingly. The Shapley value is a provably fair contribution valuation metric originating from cooperative game theory. However, its straight-forward computation requires extensively retraining a model on each potential combination of data sources, leading to prohibitively high communication and computation overheads due to multiple rounds of federated learning. To tackle this challenge, we propose a contribution valuation metric called vertical federated Shapley value (VerFedSV) based on the classic Shapley value. We show that VerFedSV not only satisfies many desirable properties of fairness but is also efficient to compute. Moreover, VerFedSV can be adapted to both synchronous and asynchronous vertical federated learning algorithms. Both theoretical analysis and extensive experimental results demonstrate the fairness, efficiency, adaptability, and effectiveness of VerFedSV.

Group robustness has become a major concern in machine learning (ML) as conventional training paradigms were found to produce high error on minority groups. Without explicit group annotations, proposed solutions rely on heuristics that aim to identify and then amplify the minority samples during training. In our work, we first uncover a critical shortcoming of these methods: an inability to distinguish legitimate minority samples from poison samples in the training set. By amplifying poison samples as well, group robustness methods inadvertently boost the success rate of an adversary---e.g., from 0\% without amplification to over 97\% with it. Notably, we supplement our empirical evidence with an impossibility result proving this inability of a standard heuristic under some assumptions. Moreover, scrutinizing recent poisoning defenses both in centralized and federated learning, we observe that they rely on similar heuristics to identify which samples should be eliminated as poisons. In consequence, minority samples are eliminated along with poisons, which damages group robustness---e.g., from 55\% without the removal of the minority samples to 41\% with it. Finally, as they pursue opposing goals using similar heuristics, our attempt to alleviate the trade-off by combining group robustness methods and poisoning defenses falls short. By exposing this tension, we also hope to highlight how benchmark-driven ML scholarship can obscure the trade-offs among different metrics with potentially detrimental consequences.

Fairness in artificial intelligence models has gained significantly more attention in recent years, especially in the area of medicine, as fairness in medical models is critical to people's well-being and lives. High-quality medical fairness datasets are needed to promote fairness learning research. Existing medical fairness datasets are all for classification tasks, and no fairness datasets are available for medical segmentation, while medical segmentation is an equally important clinical task as classifications, which can provide detailed spatial information on organ abnormalities ready to be assessed by clinicians. In this paper, we propose the first fairness dataset for medical segmentation named Harvard-FairSeg with 10,000 subject samples. In addition, we propose a fair error-bound scaling approach to reweight the loss function with the upper error-bound in each identity group, using the segment anything model (SAM). We anticipate that the segmentation performance equity can be improved by explicitly tackling the hard cases with high training errors in each identity group. To facilitate fair comparisons, we utilize a novel equity-scaled segmentation performance metric to compare segmentation metrics in the context of fairness, such as the equity-scaled Dice coefficient. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that our fair error-bound scaling approach either has superior or comparable fairness performance to the state-of-the-art fairness learning models. The dataset and code are publicly accessible via https://ophai.hms.harvard.edu/datasets/harvard-fairseg10k.

Fairness-aware graph neural networks (GNNs) have gained a surge of attention as they can reduce the bias of predictions on any demographic group (e.g., female) in graph-based applications. Although these methods greatly improve the algorithmic fairness of GNNs, the fairness can be easily corrupted by carefully designed adversarial attacks. In this paper, we investigate the problem of adversarial attacks on fairness of GNNs and propose G-FairAttack, a general framework for attacking various types of fairness-aware GNNs in terms of fairness with an unnoticeable effect on prediction utility. In addition, we propose a fast computation technique to reduce the time complexity of G-FairAttack. The experimental study demonstrates that G-FairAttack successfully corrupts the fairness of different types of GNNs while keeping the attack unnoticeable. Our study on fairness attacks sheds light on potential vulnerabilities in fairness-aware GNNs and guides further research on the robustness of GNNs in terms of fairness.

The ROC curve is the major tool for assessing not only the performance but also the fairness properties of a similarity scoring function. In order to draw reliable conclusions based on empirical ROC analysis, accurately evaluating the uncertainty level related to statistical versions of the ROC curves of interest is absolutely necessary, especially for applications with considerable societal impact such as Face Recognition. In this article, we prove asymptotic guarantees for empirical ROC curves of similarity functions as well as for by-product metrics useful to assess fairness. We also explain that, because the false acceptance/rejection rates are of the form of U-statistics in the case of similarity scoring, the naive bootstrap approach may jeopardize the assessment procedure. A dedicated recentering technique must be used instead. Beyond the theoretical analysis carried out, various experiments using real face image datasets provide strong empirical evidence of the practical relevance of the methods promoted here, when applied to several ROC-based measures such as popular fairness metrics.

Measuring geometric similarity between high-dimensional network representations is a topic of longstanding interest to neuroscience and deep learning. Although many methods have been proposed, only a few works have rigorously analyzed their statistical efficiency or quantified estimator uncertainty in data-limited regimes. Here, we derive upper and lower bounds on the worst-case convergence of standard estimators of shape distance—a measure of representational dissimilarity proposed by Williams et al. (2021). These bounds reveal the challenging nature of the problem in high-dimensional feature spaces. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a novel method-of-moments estimator with a tunable bias-variance tradeoff parameterized by an upper bound on bias. We show that this estimator achieves superior performance to standard estimators in simulation and on neural data, particularly in high-dimensional settings. Our theoretical work and estimator thus respectively define and dramatically expand the scope of neural data for which geometric similarity can be accurately measured.

In critical applications, it is vital for classifiers to defer decision-making to humans. We propose a post-hoc method that makes existing classifiers selectively abstain from predicting certain samples. Our abstaining classifier is incentivized to maintain the original accuracy for each sub-population (i.e. no harm) while achieving a set of group fairness definitions to a user specified degree. To this end, we design an Integer Programming (IP) procedure that assigns abstention decisions for each training sample to satisfy a set of constraints. To generalize the abstaining decisions to test samples, we then train a surrogate model to learn the abstaining decisions based on the IP solutions in an end-to-end manner. We analyze the feasibility of the IP procedure to determine the possible abstention rate for different levels of unfairness tolerance and accuracy constraint for achieving no harm. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to identify the theoretical relationships between the constraint parameters and the required abstention rate. Our theoretical results are important since a high abstention rate is often infeasible in practice due to a lack of human resources. Our framework outperforms existing methods in terms of fairness disparity without sacrificing accuracy at similar abstention rates.

Although transformers demonstrate impressive capabilities in a variety of tasks, the fairness issue remains a significant concern when deploying these models. Existing works to address fairness issues in transformers require sensitive labels (such as age, gender, etc.), which can raise privacy concerns or violate legal regulations. An alternative way is through fairness without demographics. However, existing works that improve Rawlsian Max-Min fairness may impose overly restrictive constraints. Other methods that use auxiliary networks could be parameter inefficient. In this paper, we present a new approach to debiasing transformers by leveraging their inherent structure. By reconsidering the roles of important components (queries, keys, and values) in the attention mechanism, we introduce a simple yet effective debiasing strategy from two perspectives: 1) Grounded in theoretical analysis, we normalize and apply absolute value operations to queries and keys to minimize the bias in attention weight allocation; 2) We reduce the bias within values through local alignment via contrastive learning. Throughout the entire process, our approach does not require any sensitive labels. Furthermore, to enhance memory efficiency in the training phase, we propose a strategy that debias only the last encoder to improve fairness in pre-trained models. We conduct experiments in computer vision and natural language processing tasks and show that our method is comparable and even outperforms the state-of-the-art method with substantially lower energy consumption.

We study deceptive fairness attacks on graphs to answer the following question: How can we achieve poisoning attacks on a graph learning model to exacerbate the bias deceptively? We answer this question via a bi-level optimization problem and propose a meta learning-based framework named FATE. FATE is broadly applicable with respect to various fairness definitions and graph learning models, as well as arbitrary choices of manipulation operations. We further instantiate FATE to attack statistical parity or individual fairness on graph neural networks. We conduct extensive experimental evaluations on real-world datasets in the task of semi-supervised node classification. The experimental results demonstrate that FATE could amplify the bias of graph neural networks with or without fairness consideration while maintaining the utility on the downstream task. We hope this paper provides insights into the adversarial robustness of fair graph learning and can shed light on designing robust and fair graph learning in future studies.

With the widespread adoption of machine learning systems, the need to curtail their behavior has become increasingly apparent. This is evidenced by recent advancements towards developing models that satisfy robustness, safety, and fairness requirements. These requirements can be imposed (with generalization guarantees) by formulating constrained learning problems that can then be tackled by dual ascent algorithms. Yet, though these algorithms converge in objective value, even in non-convex settings, they cannot guarantee that their outcome is feasible. Doing so requires randomizing over all iterates, which is impractical in virtually any modern applications. Still, final iterates have been observed to perform well in practice. In this work, we address this gap between theory and practice by characterizing the constraint violation of Lagrangian minimizers associated with optimal dual variables, despite lack of convexity. To do this, we leverage the fact that non-convex, finite-dimensional constrained learning problems can be seen as parametrizations of convex, functional problems. Our results show that rich parametrizations effectively mitigate the issue of feasibility in dual methods, shedding light on prior empirical successes of dual learning. We illustrate our findings in fair learning tasks.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of _disguised procedural unfairness_, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for _pure procedural justice_ (Rawls, 1971; 2001), we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing _disguised procedural unfairness_, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have seen significant achievements in semi-supervised node classification. Yet, their efficacy often hinges on access to high-quality labeled node samples, which may not always be available in real-world scenarios. While active learning is commonly employed across various domains to pinpoint and label high-quality samples based on data features, graph data present unique challenges due to their intrinsic structures that render nodes non-i.i.d. Furthermore, biases emerge from the positioning of labeled nodes; for instance, nodes closer to the labeled counterparts often yield better performance. To better leverage graph structure and mitigate structural bias in active learning, we present a unified optimization framework (SCARCE), which is also easily incorporated with node features. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method not only improves the GNNs performance but also paves the way for more fair results.

Fair machine learning seeks to mitigate model prediction bias against certain demographic subgroups such as elder and female. Recently, fair representation learning (FRL) trained by deep neural networks has demonstrated superior performance, whereby representations containing no demographic information are inferred from the data and then used as the input to classification or other downstream tasks. Despite the development of FRL methods, their vulnerability under data poisoning attack, a popular protocol to benchmark model robustness under adversarial scenarios, is under-explored. Data poisoning attacks have been developed for classical fair machine learning methods which incorporate fairness constraints into shallow-model classifiers. Nonetheless, these attacks fall short in FRL due to notably different fairness goals and model architectures. This work proposes the first data poisoning framework attacking FRL. We induce the model to output unfair representations that contain as much demographic information as possible by injecting carefully crafted poisoning samples into the training data. This attack entails a prohibitive bilevel optimization, wherefore an effective approximated solution is proposed. A theoretical analysis on the needed number of poisoning samples is derived and sheds light on defending against the attack. Experiments on benchmark fairness datasets and state-of-the-art fair representation learning models demonstrate the superiority of our attack.

Model pruning is a popular approach to enable the deployment of large deep learning models on edge devices with restricted computational or storage capacities. Although sparse models achieve performance comparable to that of their dense counterparts at the level of the entire dataset, they exhibit high accuracy drops for some data sub-groups. Existing methods to mitigate this disparate impact induced by pruning (i) rely on surrogate metrics that address the problem indirectly and have limited interpretability; or (ii) scale poorly with the number of protected sub-groups in terms of computational cost. We propose a constrained optimization approach that _directly addresses the disparate impact of pruning_: our formulation bounds the accuracy change between the dense and sparse models, for each sub-group. This choice of constraints provides an interpretable success criterion to determine if a pruned model achieves acceptable disparity levels. Experimental results demonstrate that our technique scales reliably to problems involving large models and hundreds of protected sub-groups.

We consider the optimization of complex performance metrics in multi-label classification under the population utility framework. We mainly focus on metrics linearly decomposable into a sum of binary classification utilities applied separately to each label with an additional requirement of exactly $k$ labels predicted for each instance. These "macro-at-$k$" metrics possess desired properties for extreme classification problems with long tail labels. Unfortunately, the at-$k$ constraint couples the otherwise independent binary classification tasks, leading to a much more challenging optimization problem than standard macro-averages. We provide a statistical framework to study this problem, prove the existence and the form of the optimal classifier, and propose a statistically consistent and practical learning algorithm based on the Frank-Wolfe method. Interestingly, our main results concern even more general metrics being non-linear functions of label-wise confusion matrices. Empirical results provide evidence for the competitive performance of the proposed approach.

This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (FFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. Ensuring fairness in machine learning is important for ethical compliance. However, there exist challenges in comparing and developing fairness methods due to inconsistencies in experimental settings, lack of accessible algorithmic implementations, and limited extensibility of current fairness packages and tools. To address these issues, we introduce an open-source standardized benchmark for evaluating in-processing group fairness methods and provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness. This work offers the following key contributions: the provision of flexible, extensible, minimalistic, and research-oriented open-source code; the establishment of unified fairness method benchmarking pipelines; and extensive benchmarking, which yields key insights from 45,079 experiments, 14,428 GPU hours. We believe that our work will significantly facilitate the growth and development of the fairness research community. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/ahxt/fair_fairness_benchmark.

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 $\textit{global fairness}$ (overall disparity of the model across all clients) or $\textit{local fairness}$ (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, $\textit{Unique Disparity}$, $\textit{Redundant Disparity}$, and $\textit{Masked Disparity}$. 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 $\textit{Accuracy and Global-Local Fairness Optimality Problem}$ (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.