mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Balancing Fairness and Accuracy in Data-Restricted Binary Classification

arXiv 2403.07724 ↗First posted 12 Mar 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

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

  1. 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,479
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  3. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  4. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
  5. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  6. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  7. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  8. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  9. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
  10. 2021Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Imagescited by 132
  11. 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
  12. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
9 more
  1. 2018Bias Mitigation Post-processing for Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 72
  2. 2021Post-processing for Individual Fairnesscited by 61
  3. 2022Causal Conceptions of Fairness and their Consequencescited by 38
  4. 2022Pushing the limits of fairness impossibility: Who's the fairest of them all?cited by 15
  5. 2020Towards Threshold Invariant Fair Classificationcited by 12
  6. 2021A Multi-Channel Ratio-of-Ratios Method for Noncontact Hand Video Based SpO2 Monitoring Using Smartphone Camerascited by 4
  7. 2024Bounding the Excess Risk for Linear Models Trained on Marginal-Preserving, Differentially-Private, Synthetic Datacited by 3
  8. 2020CryptoCredit: Securely Training Fair Modelscited by 2
  9. 2023A Canonical Data Transformation for Achieving Inter- and Within-group Fairnesscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.