7 research outputs found
Metric Learning for Individual Fairness
There has been much discussion concerning how "fairness" should be measured or enforced in classification. Individual Fairness [Dwork et al., 2012], which requires that similar individuals be treated similarly, is a highly appealing definition as it gives strong treatment guarantees for individuals. Unfortunately, the need for a task-specific similarity metric has prevented its use in practice. In this work, we propose a solution to the problem of approximating a metric for Individual Fairness based on human judgments. Our model assumes access to a human fairness arbiter who is free of explicit biases and possesses sufficient domain knowledge to evaluate similarity. Our contributions include definitions for metric approximation relevant for Individual Fairness, constructions for approximations from a limited number of realistic queries to the arbiter on a sample of individuals, and learning procedures to construct hypotheses for metric approximations which generalize to unseen samples under certain assumptions of learnability of distance threshold functions
Individual Fairness in Pipelines
It is well understood that a system built from individually fair components
may not itself be individually fair. In this work, we investigate individual
fairness under pipeline composition. Pipelines differ from ordinary sequential
or repeated composition in that individuals may drop out at any stage, and
classification in subsequent stages may depend on the remaining "cohort" of
individuals. As an example, a company might hire a team for a new project and
at a later point promote the highest performer on the team. Unlike other
repeated classification settings, where the degree of unfairness degrades
gracefully over multiple fair steps, the degree of unfairness in pipelines can
be arbitrary, even in a pipeline with just two stages.
Guided by a panoply of real-world examples, we provide a rigorous framework
for evaluating different types of fairness guarantees for pipelines. We show
that na\"{i}ve auditing is unable to uncover systematic unfairness and that, in
order to ensure fairness, some form of dependence must exist between the design
of algorithms at different stages in the pipeline. Finally, we provide
constructions that permit flexibility at later stages, meaning that there is no
need to lock in the entire pipeline at the time that the early stage is
constructed
Abstracting Fairness: Oracles, Metrics, and Interpretability
It is well understood that classification algorithms, for example, for
deciding on loan applications, cannot be evaluated for fairness without taking
context into account. We examine what can be learned from a fairness oracle
equipped with an underlying understanding of ``true'' fairness. The oracle
takes as input a (context, classifier) pair satisfying an arbitrary fairness
definition, and accepts or rejects the pair according to whether the classifier
satisfies the underlying fairness truth. Our principal conceptual result is an
extraction procedure that learns the underlying truth; moreover, the procedure
can learn an approximation to this truth given access to a weak form of the
oracle. Since every ``truly fair'' classifier induces a coarse metric, in which
those receiving the same decision are at distance zero from one another and
those receiving different decisions are at distance one, this extraction
process provides the basis for ensuring a rough form of metric fairness, also
known as individual fairness. Our principal technical result is a higher
fidelity extractor under a mild technical constraint on the weak oracle's
conception of fairness. Our framework permits the scenario in which many
classifiers, with differing outcomes, may all be considered fair. Our results
have implications for interpretablity -- a highly desired but poorly defined
property of classification systems that endeavors to permit a human arbiter to
reject classifiers deemed to be ``unfair'' or illegitimately derived.Comment: 17 pages, 1 figur
Fairness Under Composition
Algorithmic fairness, and in particular the fairness of scoring and
classification algorithms, has become a topic of increasing social concern and
has recently witnessed an explosion of research in theoretical computer
science, machine learning, statistics, the social sciences, and law. Much of
the literature considers the case of a single classifier (or scoring function)
used once, in isolation. In this work, we initiate the study of the fairness
properties of systems composed of algorithms that are fair in isolation; that
is, we study fairness under composition. We identify pitfalls of naive
composition and give general constructions for fair composition, demonstrating
both that classifiers that are fair in isolation do not necessarily compose
into fair systems and also that seemingly unfair components may be carefully
combined to construct fair systems. We focus primarily on the individual
fairness setting proposed in [Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, Zemel, 2011],
but also extend our results to a large class of group fairness definitions
popular in the recent literature, exhibiting several cases in which group
fairness definitions give misleading signals under composition.Comment: Fixed two word omission