# Rawlsian Fair Adaptation of Deep Learning Classifiers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14890 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.14890/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 May 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02453/) (2018)
- [On Fairness and Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.02012/) (2017)
- [Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.04561/) (2019)
- [Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.08230/) (2017)
- [Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08010/) (2018)
- [Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08914/) (2016)
- [Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.00075/) (2017)
- [Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guarantees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.06055/) (2018)
- [Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.04783/) (2019)
- [A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.03400/) (2018)
- [Fairness Behind a Veil of Ignorance: A Welfare Analysis for Automated Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.04959/) (2018)
- [Fair Algorithms for Infinite and Contextual Bandits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.09559/) (2016)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Debiasing Methods for Fairer Neural Models in Vision and Language Research: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05617/) (2022)
- [Toward Operationalizing Pipeline-aware ML Fairness: A Research Agenda for Developing Practical Guidelines and Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17337/) (2023)
- [Exploring Rawlsian Fairness for K-Means Clustering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.02052/) (2022)

## 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.