Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Odds
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the growing adoption of machine learning (ML) systems in areas like law enforcement, criminal justice, finance, hiring, and admissions, it is increasingly critical to guarantee the fairness of decisions assisted by ML. In this paper, we study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy under the statistical notion of equalized odds. We present a new upper bound on the accuracy (that holds for any classifier), as a function of the fairness budget. In addition, our bounds also exhibit dependence on the underlying statistics of the data, labels and the sensitive group attributes. We validate our theoretical upper bounds through empirical analysis on three real-world datasets: COMPAS, Adult, and Law School. Specifically, we compare our upper bound to the tradeoffs that are achieved by various existing fair classifiers in the literature. Our results show that achieving high accuracy subject to a low-bias could be fundamentally limited based on the statistical disparity across the groups.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2024.
Builds on
17 of 32 references.
References · 17
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
- 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 194
- 2019Inherent Tradeoffs in Learning Fair Representationscited by 144
- 2019Conditional Learning of Fair Representationscited by 78
- 2019Training individually fair ML models with Sensitive Subspace Robustnesscited by 73
- 2019Leveraging Labeled and Unlabeled Data for Consistent Fair Binary Classificationcited by 60
- 2017Penalizing Unfairness in Binary Classificationcited by 25
5 more
- 2022Bayes-Optimal Classifiers under Group Fairnesscited by 24
- 2023Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventionscited by 19
- 2022Attainability and Optimality: The Equalized Odds Fairness Revisitedcited by 10
- 2023Demystifying Local and Global Fairness Trade-offs in Federated Learning Using Partial Information Decompositioncited by 10
- 2023Learning Fair Classifiers via Min-Max F-divergence Regularizationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 5.
7 papers.
- 2024A Unified View of Group Fairness Tradeoffs Using Partial Information Decompositioncited by 3
- 2025Quantifying Data Similarity Using Cross Learningcited by 3
- 2024Learning Fair Robustness via Domain Mixupcited by 2
- 2025The Cost of Local and Global Fairness in Federated Learningcited by 2
- 2025Prompt Fairness: Sub-group Disparities in LLMscited by 1
- 2025FairMT: Fairness for Heterogeneous Multi-Task Learningcited by 1
- 2025Simple and Effective Specialized Representations for Fair Classifierscited by 0
- 2025FairMT: Fairness for Heterogeneous Multi-Task Learning29 Nov 2025
- 2025Prompt Fairness: Sub-group Disparities in LLMs25 Nov 2025
- 2025Quantifying Data Similarity Using Cross Learning13 Oct 2025
- 2025Simple and Effective Specialized Representations for Fair Classifiers16 May 2025
- 2025The Cost of Local and Global Fairness in Federated Learning27 Mar 2025
- 2024Learning Fair Robustness via Domain Mixup21 Nov 2024
- 2024A Unified View of Group Fairness Tradeoffs Using Partial Information Decomposition7 Jun 2024