Social aspects · fairness

In the machine learning ecosystem, hardware selection is often regarded as a mere utility, overshadowed by the spotlight on algorithms and data. This is especially relevant in contexts like ML-as-a-service platforms, where users often lack control over the hardware used for model deployment. This paper investigates the influence of hardware on the delicate balance between model performance and fairness. We demonstrate that hardware choices can exacerbate existing disparities, attributing these discrepancies to variations in gradient flows and loss surfaces across different demographic groups. Through both theoretical and empirical analysis, the paper not only identifies the underlying factors but also proposes an effective strategy for mitigating hardware-induced performance imbalances.

Rankings are ubiquitous across many applications, from search engines to hiring committees. In practice, many rankings are derived from the output of predictors. However, when predictors trained for classification tasks have intrinsic uncertainty, it is not obvious how this uncertainty should be represented in the derived rankings. Our work considers ranking functions: maps from individual predictions for a classification task to distributions over rankings. We focus on two aspects of ranking functions: stability to perturbations in predictions and fairness towards both individuals and subgroups. Not only is stability an important requirement for its own sake, but --- as we show --- it composes harmoniously with individual fairness in the sense of Dwork et al. (2012). While deterministic ranking functions cannot be stable aside from trivial scenarios, we show that the recently proposed uncertainty aware (UA) ranking functions of Singh et al. (2021) are stable. Our main result is that UA rankings also achieve group fairness through successful composition with multiaccurate or multicalibrated predictors. Our work demonstrates that UA rankings naturally interpolate between group and individual level fairness guarantees, while simultaneously satisfying stability guarantees important whenever machine-learned predictions are used.

We consider a cooperative learning scenario where a collection of networked agents with individually owned classifiers dynamically update their predictions, for the same classification task, through communication or observations of each other’s predictions. Clearly if highly influential vertices use erroneous classifiers, there will be a negative effect on the accuracy of all the agents in the network. We ask the following question: how can we optimally fix the prediction of a few classifiers so as maximize the overall accuracy in the entire network. To this end we consider an aggregate and an egalitarian objective function. We show a polynomial time algorithm for optimizing the aggregate objective function, and show that optimizing the egalitarian objective function is NP-hard. Furthermore, we develop approximation algorithms for the egalitarian improvement. The performance of all of our algorithms are guaranteed by mathematical analysis and backed by experiments on synthetic and real data.

A general belief in fair classification is that fairness constraints incur a trade-off with accuracy, which biased data may worsen. Contrary to this belief, Blum & Stangl (2019) show that fair classification with equal opportunity constraints even on extremely biased data can recover optimally accurate and fair classifiers on the original data distribution. Their result is interesting because it demonstrates that fairness constraints can implicitly rectify data bias and simultaneously overcome a perceived fairness-accuracy trade-off. Their data bias model simulates under-representation and label bias in underprivileged population, and they show the above result on a stylized data distribution with i.i.d. label noise, under simple conditions on the data distribution and bias parameters. We propose a general approach to extend the result of Blum & Stangl (2019) to different fairness constraints, data bias models, data distributions, and hypothesis classes. We strengthen their result, and extend it to the case when their stylized distribution has labels with Massart noise instead of i.i.d. noise. We prove a similar recovery result for arbitrary data distributions using fair reject option classifiers. We further generalize it to arbitrary data distributions and arbitrary hypothesis classes, i.e., we prove that for any data distribution, if the optimally accurate classifier in a given hypothesis class is fair and robust, then it can be recovered through fair classification with equal opportunity constraints on the biased distribution whenever the bias parameters satisfy certain simple conditions. Finally, we show applications of our technique to time-varying data bias in classification and fair machine learning pipelines.

Despite achieving promising fairness-error trade-offs, in-processing mitigation techniques for group fairness cannot be employed in numerous practical applications with limited computation resources or no access to the training pipeline of the prediction model. In these situations, post-processing is a viable alternative. However, current methods are tailored to specific problem settings and fairness definitions and hence, are not as broadly applicable as in-processing. In this work, we propose a framework that turns any regularized in-processing method into a post-processing approach. This procedure prescribes a way to obtain post-processing techniques for a much broader range of problem settings than the prior post-processing literature. We show theoretically and through extensive experiments that our framework preserves the good fairness-error trade-offs achieved with in-processing and can improve over the effectiveness of prior post-processing methods. Finally, we demonstrate several advantages of a modular mitigation strategy that disentangles the training of the prediction model from the fairness mitigation, including better performance on tasks with partial group labels.

We propose a standardized version of fairness measures for continuous scores with a reasonable interpretation based on the Wasserstein distance. Our measures are easily computable and well suited for quantifying and interpreting the strength of group disparities as well as for comparing biases across different models, datasets, or time points. We derive a link between the different families of existing fairness measures for scores and show that the proposed standardized fairness measures outperform ROC-based fairness measures because they are more explicit and can quantify significant biases that ROC-based fairness measures miss.

In this paper, we consider classic randomized low diameter decomposition procedures for planar graphs that obtain connected clusters that are cohesive in that close by pairs of nodes are assigned to the same cluster with high probability. We consider the additional aspect of *individual fairness* -- pairs of nodes at comparable distances should be separated with comparable probability. We show that classic decomposition procedures do not satisfy this property. We present novel algorithms that achieve various trade-offs between this property and additional desiderata of connectivity of the clusters and optimality in number of clusters. We show that our individual fairness bounds may be difficult to improve by tying the improvement to resolving a major open question in metric embeddings. We finally show the efficacy of our algorithms on real planar networks modeling Congressional redistricting.

We revisit the problem of online learning with individual fairness, where an online learner strives to maximize predictive accuracy while ensuring that similar individuals are treated similarly. We first extend the frameworks of Gillen et al. (2018); Bechavod et al. (2020), which rely on feedback from human auditors regarding fairness violations, to allow for auditing schemes that can aggregate feedback from any number of auditors, using a rich class we term monotone aggregation functions, for which we also prove a useful characterization. Using our generalized framework, we present an oracle-efficient algorithm guaranteeing a bound of $\mathcal{O}(T^\frac{3}{4})$ simultaneously for regret and number of fairness violations. We then study an online classification setting where label feedback is available for positively-predicted individuals only, and present an algorithm guaranteeing a bound of $\mathcal{O}(T^\frac{5}{6})$ simultaneously for regret and number of fairness violations. In both settings, our algorithms improve on the best known bounds for oracle-efficient algorithms. Furthermore, our algorithms offer significant improvements in computational efficiency, greatly reducing the number of required calls to an (offline) optimization oracle, as opposed to previous algorithms which required $T$ such calls every round.

Fairness has become a crucial aspect in the development of trustworthy machine learning algorithms. Current fairness metrics to measure the violation of demographic parity have the following drawbacks: (i) the *average difference* of model predictions on two groups cannot reflect their *distribution disparity*, and (ii) the *overall* calculation along all possible predictions conceals the *extreme local disparity* at or around certain predictions. In this work, we propose a novel fairness metric called **M**aximal **C**umulative ratio **D**isparity along varying **P**redictions' neighborhood (MCDP), for measuring the maximal local disparity of the fairness-aware classifiers. To accurately and efficiently calculate the MCDP, we develop a provably exact and an approximate calculation algorithm that greatly reduces the computational complexity with low estimation error. We further propose a bi-level optimization algorithm using a differentiable approximation of the MCDP for improving the algorithmic fairness. Extensive experiments on both tabular and image datasets validate that our fair training algorithm can achieve superior fairness-accuracy trade-offs.

Fair decision making has largely been studied with respect to a single decision. Here we investigate the notion of fairness in the context of sequential decision making where multiple stakeholders can be affected by the outcomes of decisions. We observe that fairness often depends on the history of the sequential decision-making process, and in this sense that it is inherently non-Markovian. We further observe that fairness often needs to be assessed at time points *within* the process, not just at the end of the process. To advance our understanding of this class of fairness problems, we explore the notion of non-Markovian fairness in the context of sequential decision making. We identify properties of non-Markovian fairness, including notions of long-term, anytime, periodic, and bounded fairness. We explore the interplay between non-Markovian fairness and memory and how memory can support construction of fair policies. Finally, we introduce the FairQCM algorithm, which can automatically augment its training data to improve sample efficiency in the synthesis of fair policies via reinforcement learning.

Contrary to traditional deterministic notions of algorithmic fairness, this paper argues that fairly allocating scarce resources using machine learning often requires randomness. We address why, when, and how to randomize by offering a set of stochastic procedures that more adequately account for all of the claims individuals have to allocations of social goods or opportunities and effectively balances their interests.