Rawlsian Fair Adaptation of Deep Learning Classifiers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Group-fairness in classification aims for equality of a predictive utility across different sensitive sub-populations, e.g., race or gender. Equality or near-equality constraints in group-fairness often worsen not only the aggregate utility but also the utility for the least advantaged sub-population. In this paper, we apply the principles of Pareto-efficiency and least-difference to the utility being accuracy, as an illustrative example, and arrive at the Rawls classifier that minimizes the error rate on the worst-off sensitive sub-population. Our mathematical characterization shows that the Rawls classifier uniformly applies a threshold to an ideal score of features, in the spirit of fair equality of opportunity. In practice, such a score or a feature representation is often computed by a black-box model that has been useful but unfair. Our second contribution is practical Rawlsian fair adaptation of any given black-box deep learning model, without changing the score or feature representation it computes. Given any score function or feature representation and only its second-order statistics on the sensitive sub-populations, we seek a threshold classifier on the given score or a linear threshold classifier on the given feature representation that achieves the Rawls error rate restricted to this hypothesis class. Our technical contribution is to formulate the above problems using ambiguous chance constraints, and to provide efficient algorithms for Rawlsian fair adaptation, along with provable upper bounds on the Rawls error rate. Our empirical results show significant improvement over state-of-the-art group-fair algorithms, even without retraining for fairness.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2021.
Builds on
14 of 47 references.
References · 14
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 396
- 2018Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss Minimizationcited by 363
- 2016Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scalecited by 208
- 2017Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair Representationscited by 165
- 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
- 2019Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 57
- 2018A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunitycited by 53
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1.
3 papers.