Utility-Fairness Trade-Offs and How to Find Them
2404.09454
0
0
🗣️
Abstract
When building classification systems with demographic fairness considerations, there are two objectives to satisfy: 1) maximizing utility for the specific task and 2) ensuring fairness w.r.t. a known demographic attribute. These objectives often compete, so optimizing both can lead to a trade-off between utility and fairness. While existing works acknowledge the trade-offs and study their limits, two questions remain unanswered: 1) What are the optimal trade-offs between utility and fairness? and 2) How can we numerically quantify these trade-offs from data for a desired prediction task and demographic attribute of interest? This paper addresses these questions. We introduce two utility-fairness trade-offs: the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-off. The trade-offs reveal three regions within the utility-fairness plane, delineating what is fully and partially possible and impossible. We propose U-FaTE, a method to numerically quantify the trade-offs for a given prediction task and group fairness definition from data samples. Based on the trade-offs, we introduce a new scheme for evaluating representations. An extensive evaluation of fair representation learning methods and representations from over 1000 pre-trained models revealed that most current approaches are far from the estimated and achievable fairness-utility trade-offs across multiple datasets and prediction tasks.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the trade-off between maximizing utility for a specific prediction task and ensuring fairness with respect to a known demographic attribute.
- It introduces two novel trade-offs, the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-off, which reveal the optimal balance between utility and fairness.
- The authors propose a method called U-FaTE to numerically quantify these trade-offs from data samples for a given prediction task and fairness definition.
- Based on the trade-offs, the paper introduces a new scheme for evaluating fair representation learning methods and representations from pre-trained models.
Plain English Explanation
When building classification systems that consider demographic fairness, there are two main goals: 1) maximizing the system's performance on the specific task, and 2) ensuring the system treats all demographic groups fairly. These two goals often clash, so finding the right balance can be challenging.
The paper addresses two key questions: 1) What is the optimal trade-off between utility and fairness? and 2) How can we measure these trade-offs from data for a particular prediction task and demographic attribute of interest? To answer these questions, the authors introduce two new concepts: the Data-Space Trade-off and the Label-Space Trade-off.
These trade-offs reveal three distinct regions in the utility-fairness plane: what is fully possible, what is partially possible, and what is impossible. The authors then propose a method called U-FaTE to quantify these trade-offs from data samples. This allows them to establish a new framework for evaluating fair representation learning methods and representations from pre-trained machine learning models.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces two novel trade-offs between utility and fairness: the Data-Space Trade-off and the Label-Space Trade-off. The Data-Space Trade-off captures the inherent limitations in achieving fairness when the available data is itself biased or imbalanced across demographic groups. The Label-Space Trade-off, on the other hand, reflects the fundamental tension between maximizing utility for the prediction task and ensuring fairness with respect to a demographic attribute.
These trade-offs delineate three regions in the utility-fairness plane: the Fully-Feasible region, the Partially-Feasible region, and the Infeasible region. The Fully-Feasible region represents the optimal balance of utility and fairness that can be achieved, the Partially-Feasible region corresponds to suboptimal trade-offs, and the Infeasible region indicates combinations of utility and fairness that are unattainable.
The authors propose a method called U-FaTE (Utility-Fairness Trade-off Estimation) to numerically quantify these trade-offs from data samples for a given prediction task and fairness definition. U-FaTE leverages techniques from causal inference and constrained optimization to estimate the boundaries of the Fully-Feasible and Partially-Feasible regions.
Using the trade-offs established by U-FaTE, the paper introduces a new scheme for evaluating fair representation learning methods and representations from over 1,000 pre-trained machine learning models. The evaluation reveals that most current approaches are far from the estimated and achievable fairness-utility trade-offs across multiple datasets and prediction tasks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous theoretical framework for understanding the inherent trade-offs between utility and fairness in classification systems. The introduction of the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-offs is a significant contribution, as it helps to quantify the fundamental limitations in achieving both high utility and fairness.
However, the paper does not address the potential challenges in implementing the U-FaTE method in practice. The method relies on causal inference techniques and constrained optimization, which may be computationally intensive and require careful tuning of hyperparameters. Additionally, the paper does not discuss the robustness of the U-FaTE estimates to violations of the underlying assumptions, such as the validity of the causal model or the accuracy of the fairness definition.
Furthermore, the evaluation of fair representation learning methods and pre-trained models is limited to a subset of available techniques and datasets. It would be valuable to expand the scope of the evaluation to include a wider range of approaches and real-world applications, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the state of the art in this field.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a novel theoretical framework for understanding the trade-offs between utility and fairness in classification systems. By proposing the Data-Space and Label-Space Trade-offs, the authors provide a systematic way to quantify the optimal balance between these two competing objectives. The U-FaTE method enables researchers and practitioners to estimate these trade-offs from data samples, which can inform the development of more effective and equitable machine learning systems.
While the paper highlights the limitations of current fair representation learning methods and pre-trained models, it also lays the groundwork for future research to push the boundaries of what is possible in terms of achieving high utility and fairness simultaneously. As the field of algorithmic fairness continues to evolve, this work offers a valuable contribution to our understanding of the fundamental challenges and potential solutions in this space.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
📊
Achievable Fairness on Your Data With Utility Guarantees
Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, Jean-Francois Ton, Yang Liu
0
0
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.
5/31/2024
Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective
Drago Plecko, Elias Bareinboim
0
0
Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
5/27/2024
🎲
Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
Meiyu Zhong, Ravi Tandon
0
0
With the growing adoption of machine learning (ML) systems in areas like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it is increasingly critical to guarantee the fairness of decisions assisted by ML. In this paper, we study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy under the statistical notion of equalized odds. We present a new upper bound on the accuracy (that holds for any classifier), as a function of the fairness budget. In addition, our bounds also exhibit dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels and the sensitive group attributes. We validate our theoretical upper bounds through empirical analysis on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School. Specifically, we compare our upper bound to the tradeoffs that are achieved by various existing fair classifiers in the literature. Our results show that achieving high accuracy subject to a low-bias could be fundamentally limited based on the statistical disparity across the groups.
5/17/2024
👨🏫
Transferring Fairness using Multi-Task Learning with Limited Demographic Information
Carlos Aguirre, Mark Dredze
0
0
Training supervised machine learning systems with a fairness loss can improve prediction fairness across different demographic groups. However, doing so requires demographic annotations for training data, without which we cannot produce debiased classifiers for most tasks. Drawing inspiration from transfer learning methods, we investigate whether we can utilize demographic data from a related task to improve the fairness of a target task. We adapt a single-task fairness loss to a multi-task setting to exploit demographic labels from a related task in debiasing a target task and demonstrate that demographic fairness objectives transfer fairness within a multi-task framework. Additionally, we show that this approach enables intersectional fairness by transferring between two datasets with different single-axis demographics. We explore different data domains to show how our loss can improve fairness domains and tasks.
4/17/2024