Tracking and Improving Information in the Service of Fairness

As algorithmic prediction systems have become widespread, fears that these systems may inadvertently discriminate against members of underrepresented populations have grown. With the goal of understanding fundamental principles that underpin the growing number of approaches to mitigating algorithmic discrimination, we investigate the role of information in fair prediction. A common strategy for decision-making uses a predictor to assign individuals a risk score; then, individuals are selected or rejected on the basis of this score. In this work, we study a formal framework for measuring the information content of predictors. Central to this framework is the notion of a refinement, first studied by Degroot and Fienberg. Intuitively, a refinement of a predictor $z$ increases the overall informativeness of the predictions without losing the information already contained in $z$. We show that increasing information content through refinements improves the downstream selection rules across a wide range of fairness measures (e.g. true positive rates, false positive rates, selection rates). In turn, refinements provide a simple but effective tool for reducing disparity in treatment and impact without sacrificing the utility of the predictions. Our results suggest that in many applications, the perceived "cost of fairness" results from an information disparity across populations, and thus, may be avoided with improved information.Comment: Appeared at EC 201

Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing

A trade-off between accuracy and fairness is almost taken as a given in the existing literature on fairness in machine learning. Yet, it is not preordained that accuracy should decrease with increased fairness. Novel to this work, we examine fair classification through the lens of mismatched hypothesis testing: trying to find a classifier that distinguishes between two ideal distributions when given two mismatched distributions that are biased. Using Chernoff information, a tool in information theory, we theoretically demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, there always exist ideal distributions such that optimal fairness and accuracy (with respect to the ideal distributions) are achieved simultaneously: there is no trade-off. Moreover, the same classifier yields the lack of a trade-off with respect to ideal distributions while yielding a trade-off when accuracy is measured with respect to the given (possibly biased) dataset. To complement our main result, we formulate an optimization to find ideal distributions and derive fundamental limits to explain why a trade-off exists on the given biased dataset. We also derive conditions under which active data collection can alleviate the fairness-accuracy trade-off in the real world. Our results lead us to contend that it is problematic to measure accuracy with respect to data that reflects bias, and instead, we should be considering accuracy with respect to ideal, unbiased data.Comment: This paper appears in the Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2803--2813, 202

Fairness Under Feature Exemptions: Counterfactual and Observational Measures

With the growing use of AI in highly consequential domains, the quantification and removal of bias with respect to protected attributes, such as gender, race, etc., is becoming increasingly important. While quantifying bias is essential, sometimes the needs of a business (e.g., hiring) may require the use of certain features that are critical in a way that any bias that can be explained by them might need to be exempted. E.g., a standardized test-score may be a critical feature that should be weighed strongly in hiring even if biased, whereas other features, such as zip code may be used only to the extent that they do not discriminate. In this work, we propose a novel information-theoretic decomposition of the total bias (in a counterfactual sense) into a non-exempt component that quantifies the part of the bias that cannot be accounted for by the critical features, and an exempt component which quantifies the remaining bias. This decomposition allows one to check if the bias arose purely due to the critical features (inspired from the business necessity defense of disparate impact law) and also enables selective removal of the non-exempt component if desired. We arrive at this decomposition through examples that lead to a set of desirable properties (axioms) that any measure of non-exempt bias should satisfy. We demonstrate that our proposed counterfactual measure satisfies all of them. Our quantification bridges ideas of causality, Simpson's paradox, and a body of work from information theory called Partial Information Decomposition. We also obtain an impossibility result showing that no observational measure of non-exempt bias can satisfy all of the desirable properties, which leads us to relax our goals and examine observational measures that satisfy only some of these properties. We then perform case studies to show how one can train models while reducing non-exempt bias.Comment: Journal version (Shorter version was accepted at AAAI 2020 as an oral presentation