Fair for All: Best-effort Fairness Guarantees for Classification
December 18, 2020 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Anilesh K. Krishnaswamy, Zhihao Jiang, Kangning Wang, Yu Cheng, Kamesh Munagala
arXiv ID
2012.10216
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.GT
Citations
11
Venue
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
Standard approaches to group-based notions of fairness, such as \emph{parity} and \emph{equalized odds}, try to equalize absolute measures of performance across known groups (based on race, gender, etc.). Consequently, a group that is inherently harder to classify may hold back the performance on other groups; and no guarantees can be provided for unforeseen groups. Instead, we propose a fairness notion whose guarantee, on each group $g$ in a class $\mathcal{G}$, is relative to the performance of the best classifier on $g$. We apply this notion to broad classes of groups, in particular, where (a) $\mathcal{G}$ consists of all possible groups (subsets) in the data, and (b) $\mathcal{G}$ is more streamlined. For the first setting, which is akin to groups being completely unknown, we devise the {\sc PF} (Proportional Fairness) classifier, which guarantees, on any possible group $g$, an accuracy that is proportional to that of the optimal classifier for $g$, scaled by the relative size of $g$ in the data set. Due to including all possible groups, some of which could be too complex to be relevant, the worst-case theoretical guarantees here have to be proportionally weaker for smaller subsets. For the second setting, we devise the {\sc BeFair} (Best-effort Fair) framework which seeks an accuracy, on every $g \in \mathcal{G}$, which approximates that of the optimal classifier on $g$, independent of the size of $g$. Aiming for such a guarantee results in a non-convex problem, and we design novel techniques to get around this difficulty when $\mathcal{G}$ is the set of linear hypotheses. We test our algorithms on real-world data sets, and present interesting comparative insights on their performance.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning
๐
๐
Old Age
Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks
๐
๐
Old Age
Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor
๐
๐
Old Age
SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted