Balancing Fairness and Accuracy in Data-Restricted Binary Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Applications that deal with sensitive information may have restrictions placed on the data available to a machine learning (ML) classifier. For example, in some applications, a classifier may not have direct access to sensitive attributes, affecting its ability to produce accurate and fair decisions. This paper proposes a framework that models the trade-off between accuracy and fairness under four practical scenarios that dictate the type of data available for analysis. Prior works examine this trade-off by analyzing the outputs of a scoring function that has been trained to implicitly learn the underlying distribution of the feature vector, class label, and sensitive attribute of a dataset. In contrast, our framework directly analyzes the behavior of the optimal Bayesian classifier on this underlying distribution by constructing a discrete approximation it from the dataset itself. This approach enables us to formulate multiple convex optimization problems, which allow us to answer the question: How is the accuracy of a Bayesian classifier affected in different data restricting scenarios when constrained to be fair? Analysis is performed on a set of fairness definitions that include group and individual fairness. Experiments on three datasets demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework as a tool for quantifying the trade-offs among different fairness notions and their distributional dependencies.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2024.
Builds on
21 of 51 references.
References · 21
- 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,479
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
- 2021Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Imagescited by 132
- 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
- 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
9 more
- 2018Bias Mitigation Post-processing for Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 72
- 2021Post-processing for Individual Fairnesscited by 61
- 2022Causal Conceptions of Fairness and their Consequencescited by 38
- 2022Pushing the limits of fairness impossibility: Who's the fairest of them all?cited by 15
- 2020Towards Threshold Invariant Fair Classificationcited by 12
- 2021A Multi-Channel Ratio-of-Ratios Method for Noncontact Hand Video Based SpO2 Monitoring Using Smartphone Camerascited by 4
- 2024Bounding the Excess Risk for Linear Models Trained on Marginal-Preserving, Differentially-Private, Synthetic Datacited by 3
- 2020CryptoCredit: Securely Training Fair Modelscited by 2
- 2023A Canonical Data Transformation for Achieving Inter- and Within-group Fairnesscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.