NeurIPS 2024 Papers

Fair-range clustering extends classical clustering formulations by associating each data point with one or more demographic labels. It imposes lower and upper bound constraints on the number of facilities opened for each label, ensuring fair representation of all demographic groups by the selected facilities. In this paper we focus on the fair-range $k$-median and $k$-means problems in Euclidean spaces. We give $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithms with fixed-parameter tractable running times for both problems, parameterized by the numbers of opened facilities and demographic labels. For Euclidean metrics, these are the first parameterized approximation schemes for the problems, improving upon the previously known $O(1)$-approximation ratios given by Thejaswi et al. (KDD 2022).

Learning generalized models from biased data is an important undertaking toward fairness in deep learning. To address this issue, recent studies attempt to identify and leverage bias-conflicting samples free from spurious correlations without prior knowledge of bias or an unbiased set. However, spurious correlation remains an ongoing challenge, primarily due to the difficulty in correctly detecting these samples. In this paper, inspired by the similarities between mislabeled samples and bias-conflicting samples, we approach this challenge from a novel perspective of mislabeled sample detection. Specifically, we delve into Influence Function, one of the standard methods for mislabeled sample detection, for identifying bias-conflicting samples and propose a simple yet effective remedy for biased models by leveraging them. Through comprehensive analysis and experiments on diverse datasets, we demonstrate that our new perspective can boost the precision of detection and rectify biased models effectively. Furthermore, our approach is complementary to existing methods, showing performance improvement even when applied to models that have already undergone recent debiasing techniques.

In the basic recommendation paradigm, the most (predicted) relevant item is recommended to each user. This may result in some items receiving lower exposure than they "should"; to counter this, several algorithmic approaches have been developed to ensure *item fairness*. These approaches necessarily degrade recommendations for some users to improve outcomes for items, leading to *user fairness* concerns. In turn, a recent line of work has focused on developing algorithms for multi-sided fairness, to jointly optimize user fairness, item fairness, and overall recommendation quality. This induces the question: *what is the tradeoff between these objectives, and what are the characteristics of (multi-objective) optimal solutions?* Theoretically, we develop a model of recommendations with user and item fairness objectives and characterize the solutions of fairness-constrained optimization. We identify two phenomena: (a) when user preferences are diverse, there is "free" item and user fairness; and (b) users whose preferences are misestimated can be *especially* disadvantaged by item fairness constraints. Empirically, we prototype a recommendation system for preprints on arXiv and implement our framework, measuring the phenomena in practice and showing how these phenomena inform the *design* of markets with recommendation systems-intermediated matching.

The pursuit of fairness in machine learning (ML), ensuring that the models do not exhibit biases toward protected demographic groups, typically results in a compromise scenario. This compromise can be explained by a Pareto frontier where given certain resources (e.g., data), reducing the fairness violations often comes at the cost of lowering the model accuracy. In this work, we aim to train models that mitigate group fairness disparity without causing harm to model accuracy. Intuitively, acquiring more data is a natural and promising approach to achieve this goal by reaching a better Pareto frontier of the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. The current data acquisition methods, such as fair active learning approaches, typically require annotating sensitive attributes. However, these sensitive attribute annotations should be protected due to privacy and safety concerns. In this paper, we propose a tractable active data sampling algorithm that does not rely on training group annotations, instead only requiring group annotations on a small validation set. Specifically, the algorithm first scores each new example by its influence on fairness and accuracy evaluated on the validation dataset, and then selects a certain number of examples for training. We theoretically analyze how acquiring more data can improve fairness without causing harm, and validate the possibility of our sampling approach in the context of risk disparity. We also provide the upper bound of generalization error and risk disparity as well as the corresponding connections. Extensive experiments on real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm. Our code is available at [github.com/UCSC-REAL/FairnessWithoutHarm](https://github.com/UCSC-REAL/FairnessWithoutHarm).

The widespread success of deep learning models today is owed to the curation of extensive datasets significant in size and complexity. However, such models frequently pick up inherent biases in the data during the training process, leading to unreliable predictions. Diagnosing and debiasing datasets is thus a necessity to ensure reliable model performance. In this paper, we present ConBias, a novel framework for diagnosing and mitigating Concept co-occurrence Biases in visual datasets. ConBias represents visual datasets as knowledge graphs of concepts, enabling meticulous analysis of spurious concept co-occurrences to uncover concept imbalances across the whole dataset. Moreover, we show that by employing a novel clique-based concept balancing strategy, we can mitigate these imbalances, leading to enhanced performance on downstream tasks. Extensive experiments show that data augmentation based on a balanced concept distribution augmented by ConBias improves generalization performance across multiple datasets compared to state-of-the-art methods.

This paper examines the issue of fairness in the estimation of graphical models (GMs), particularly Gaussian, Covariance, and Ising models. These models play a vital role in understanding complex relationships in high-dimensional data. However, standard GMs can result in biased outcomes, especially when the underlying data involves sensitive characteristics or protected groups. To address this, we introduce a comprehensive framework designed to reduce bias in the estimation of GMs related to protected attributes. Our approach involves the integration of the pairwise graph disparity error and a tailored loss function into a nonsmooth multi-objective optimization problem, striving to achieve fairness across different sensitive groups while maintaining the effectiveness of the GMs. Experimental evaluations on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our framework effectively mitigates bias without undermining GMs' performance.

Machine learning over graphs has recently attracted growing attention due to its ability to analyze and learn complex relations within critical interconnected systems. However, the disparate impact that is amplified by the use of biased graph structures in these algorithms has raised significant concerns for their deployment in real-world decision systems. In addition, while synthetic graph generation has become pivotal for privacy and scalability considerations, the impact of generative learning algorithms on structural bias has not yet been investigated. Motivated by this, this work focuses on the analysis and mitigation of structural bias for both real and synthetic graphs. Specifically, we first theoretically analyze the sources of structural bias that result in disparity for the predictions of dyadic relations. To alleviate the identified bias factors, we design a novel fairness regularizer that offers a versatile use. Faced with the bias amplification in graph generation models brought to light in this work, we further propose a fair graph generation framework, FairWire, by leveraging our fair regularizer design in a generative model. Experimental results on real-world networks validate that the proposed tools herein deliver effective structural bias mitigation for both real and synthetic graphs.

We address the problem of performing regression while ensuring demographic parity, even without access to sensitive attributes during inference. We present a general-purpose post-processing algorithm that, using accurate estimates of the regression function and a sensitive attribute predictor, generates predictions that meet the demographic parity constraint. Our method involves discretization and stochastic minimization of a smooth convex function. It is suitable for online post-processing and multi-class classification tasks only involving unlabeled data for the post-processing. Unlike prior methods, our approach is fully theory-driven. We require precise control over the gradient norm of the convex function, and thus, we rely on more advanced techniques than standard stochastic gradient descent. Our algorithm is backed by finite-sample analysis and post-processing bounds, with experimental results validating our theoretical findings.

In machine learning (ML), a widespread claim is that the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) is a superior metric for model comparison to the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for tasks with class imbalance. This paper refutes this notion on two fronts. First, we theoretically characterize the behavior of AUROC and AUPRC in the presence of model mistakes, establishing clearly that AUPRC is not generally superior in cases of class imbalance. We further show that AUPRC can be a harmful metric as it can unduly favor model improvements in subpopulations with more frequent positive labels, heightening algorithmic disparities. Next, we empirically support our theory using experiments on both semi-synthetic and real-world fairness datasets. Prompted by these insights, we conduct a review of over 1.5 million scientific papers to understand the origin of this invalid claim, finding that it is often made without citation, misattributed to papers that do not argue this point, and aggressively over-generalized from source arguments. Our findings represent a dual contribution: a significant technical advancement in understanding the relationship between AUROC and AUPRC and a stark warning about unchecked assumptions in the ML community.

Models trained with empirical risk minimization (ERM) are prone to be biased towards spurious correlations between target labels and bias attributes, which leads to poor performance on data groups lacking spurious correlations. It is particularly challenging to address this problem when access to bias labels is not permitted. To mitigate the effect of spurious correlations without bias labels, we first introduce a novel training objective designed to robustly enhance model performance across all data samples, irrespective of the presence of spurious correlations. From this objective, we then derive a debiasing method, Disagreement Probability based Resampling for debiasing (DPR), which does not require bias labels. DPR leverages the disagreement between the target label and the prediction of a biased model to identify bias-conflicting samples—those without spurious correlations—and upsamples them according to the disagreement probability. Empirical evaluations on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that DPR achieves state-of-the-art performance over existing baselines that do not use bias labels. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical analysis that details how DPR reduces dependency on spurious correlations.

Calibration is a well-studied property of predictors which guarantees meaningful uncertainty estimates. Multicalibration is a related notion --- originating in algorithmic fairness --- which requires predictors to be simultaneously calibrated over a potentially complex and overlapping collection of protected subpopulations (such as groups defined by ethnicity, race, or income). We conduct the first comprehensive study evaluating the usefulness of multicalibration post-processing across a broad set of tabular, image, and language datasets for models spanning from simple decision trees to 90 million parameter fine-tuned LLMs. Our findings can be summarized as follows: (1) models which are calibrated out of the box tend to be relatively multicalibrated without any additional post-processing; (2) multicalibration can help inherently uncalibrated models and also large vision and language models; and (3) traditional calibration measures may sometimes provide multicalibration implicitly. More generally, we also distill many independent observations which may be useful for practical and effective applications of multicalibration post-processing in real-world contexts.

Developing fair automated machine learning algorithms is critical in making safe and trustworthy decisions. Many causality-based fairness notions have been proposed to address the above issues by quantifying the causal connections between sensitive attributes and decisions, and when the true causal graph is fully known, certain algorithms that achieve interventional fairness have been proposed. However, when the true causal graph is unknown, it is still challenging to effectively and efficiently exploit partially directed acyclic graphs (PDAGs) to achieve interventional fairness. To exploit the PDAGs for achieving interventional fairness, previous methods have been built on variable selection or causal effect identification, but limited to reduced prediction accuracy or strong assumptions. In this paper, we propose a general min-max optimization framework that can achieve interventional fairness with promising prediction accuracy and can be extended to maximally oriented PDAGs (MPDAGs) with added background knowledge. Specifically, we first estimate all possible treatment effects of sensitive attributes on a given prediction model from all possible adjustment sets of sensitive attributes via an efficient local approach. Next, we propose to alternatively update the prediction model and possible estimated causal effects, where the prediction model is trained via a min-max loss to control the worst-case fairness violations. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets verify the superiority of our methods. To benefit the research community, we have released our project at https://github.com/haoxuanli-pku/NeurIPS24-Interventional-Fairness-with-PDAGs.

Fairness in image restoration tasks is the desire to treat different sub-groups of images equally well. Existing definitions of fairness in image restoration are highly restrictive. They consider a reconstruction to be a correct outcome for a group (e.g., women) *only* if it falls within the group's set of ground truth images (e.g., natural images of women); otherwise, it is considered *entirely* incorrect. Consequently, such definitions are prone to controversy, as errors in image restoration can manifest in various ways. In this work we offer an alternative approach towards fairness in image restoration, by considering the *Group Perceptual Index* (GPI), which we define as the statistical distance between the distribution of the group's ground truth images and the distribution of their reconstructions. We assess the fairness of an algorithm by comparing the GPI of different groups, and say that it achieves perfect *Perceptual Fairness* (PF) if the GPIs of all groups are identical. We motivate and theoretically study our new notion of fairness, draw its connection to previous ones, and demonstrate its utility on state-of-the-art face image restoration algorithms.

Failures of fairness or robustness in machine learning predictive settings can be due to undesired dependencies between covariates, outcomes and auxiliary factors of variation. A common strategy to mitigate these failures is data balancing, which attempts to remove those undesired dependencies. In this work, we define conditions on the training distribution for data balancing to lead to fair or robust models. Our results display that in many cases, the balanced distribution does not correspond to selectively removing the undesired dependencies in a causal graph of the task, leading to multiple failure modes and even interference with other mitigation techniques such as regularization. Overall, our results highlight the importance of taking the causal graph into account before performing data balancing.

We study the proportional clustering problem of Chen et al. (ICML'19) and relate it to the area of multiwinner voting in computational social choice. We show that any clustering satisfying a weak proportionality notion of Brill and Peters (EC'23) simultaneously obtains the best known approximations to the proportional fairness notion of Chen et al., but also to individual fairness (Jung et al., FORC'20) and the ``core'' (Li et al., ICML'21). In fact, we show that any approximation to proportional fairness is also an approximation to individual fairness and vice versa. Finally, we also study stronger notions of proportional representation, in which deviations do not only happen to single, but multiple candidate centers, and show that stronger proportionality notions of Brill and Peters imply approximations to these stronger guarantees.

In high-stakes domains such as healthcare and hiring, the role of machine learning (ML) in decision-making raises significant fairness concerns. This work focuses on Counterfactual Fairness (CF), which posits that an ML model's outcome on any individual should remain unchanged if they had belonged to a different demographic group. Previous works have proposed methods that guarantee CF. Notwithstanding, their effects on the model's predictive performance remain largely unclear. To fill this gap, we provide a theoretical study on the inherent trade-off between CF and predictive performance in a model-agnostic manner. We first propose a simple but effective method to cast an optimal but potentially unfair predictor into a fair one with a minimal loss of performance. By analyzing the excess risk incurred by perfect CF, we quantify this inherent trade-off. Further analysis on our method's performance with access to only incomplete causal knowledge is also conducted. Built upon this, we propose a practical algorithm that can be applied in such scenarios. Experiments on both synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets demonstrate the validity of our analysis and methods.

In image classification, it is common to utilize a pretrained model to extract meaningful features of the input images, and then to train a classifier on top of it to make predictions for any downstream task. Trained on enormous amounts of data, these models have been shown to contain harmful biases which can hurt their performance when adapted for a downstream classification task. Further, very often they may be blackbox, either due to scale, or because of unavailability of model weights or architecture. Thus, during a downstream task, we cannot debias such models by updating the weights of the feature encoder, as only the classifier can be finetuned. In this regard, we investigate the suitability of some existing debiasing techniques and thereby motivate the need for more focused research towards this problem setting. Furthermore, we propose a simple method consisting of a clustering-based adaptive margin loss with a blackbox feature encoder, with no knowledge of the bias attribute. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method across multiple benchmarks.

In machine learning fairness, training models that minimize disparity across different sensitive groups often leads to diminished accuracy, a phenomenon known as the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The severity of this trade-off inherently depends on dataset characteristics such as dataset imbalances or biases and therefore, using a uniform fairness requirement across diverse datasets remains questionable. To address this, we present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve tailored to individual datasets, backed by rigorous statistical guarantees. By utilizing the You-Only-Train-Once (YOTO) framework, our approach mitigates the computational burden of having to train multiple models when approximating the trade-off curve. Crucially, we introduce a novel methodology for quantifying uncertainty in our estimates, thereby providing practitioners with a robust framework for auditing model fairness while avoiding false conclusions due to estimation errors. Our experiments spanning tabular (e.g., Adult), image (CelebA), and language (Jigsaw) datasets underscore that our approach not only reliably quantifies the optimum achievable trade-offs across various data modalities but also helps detect suboptimality in SOTA fairness methods.

Low-rank approximation and column subset selection are two fundamental and related problems that are applied across a wealth of machine learning applications. In this paper, we study the question of socially fair low-rank approximation and socially fair column subset selection, where the goal is to minimize the loss over all sub-populations of the data. We show that surprisingly, even constant-factor approximation to fair low-rank approximation requires exponential time under certain standard complexity hypotheses. On the positive side, we give an algorithm for fair low-rank approximation that, for a constant number of groups and constant-factor accuracy, runs in $2^{\text{poly}(k)}$ rather than the naive $n^{\text{poly}(k)}$, which is a substantial improvement when the dataset has a large number $n$ of observations. We then show that there exist bicriteria approximation algorithms for fair low-rank approximation and fair column subset selection that runs in polynomial time.