Beyond Impossibility: Balancing Sufficiency, Separation and Accuracy
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Among the various aspects of algorithmic fairness studied in recent years, the tension between satisfying both textitsufficiency and textitseparation -- e.g. the ratios of positive or negative predictive values, and false positive or false negative rates across groups -- has received much attention. Following a debate sparked by COMPAS, a criminal justice predictive system, the academic community has responded by laying out important theoretical understanding, showing that one cannot achieve both with an imperfect predictor when there is no equal distribution of labels across the groups. In this paper, we shed more light on what might be still possible beyond the impossibility -- the existence of a trade-off means we should aim to find a good balance within it. After refining the existing theoretical result, we propose an objective that aims to balance textitsufficiency and textitseparation measures, while maintaining similar accuracy levels. We show the use of such an objective in two empirical case studies, one involving a multi-objective framework, and the other fine-tuning of a model pre-trained for accuracy. We show promising results, where better trade-offs are achieved compared to existing alternatives.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2022.
Builds on
22 of 40 references.
References · 22
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,854
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
- 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
- 2019Towards Fairness in Visual Recognition: Effective Strategies for Bias Mitigationcited by 252
- 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
10 more
- 2020Minimax Pareto Fairness: A Multi Objective Perspectivecited by 153
- 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
- 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
- 2020Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 143
- 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
- 2019Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy?cited by 50
- 2020Addressing Fairness in Classification with a Model-Agnostic Multi-Objective Algorithmcited by 23
- 2020Minimax Group Fairness: Algorithms and Experimentscited by 17
- 2020Fairness with Overlapping Groupscited by 12
- 2020A Possibility in Algorithmic Fairness: Can Calibration and Equal Error Rates Be Reconciled?cited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2.
2 papers.