TL;DR
This paper investigates how to implement fairness constraints like sufficiency, PPV parity, and FOR parity in binary classifiers, revealing optimal decision rules and counter-intuitive outcomes in utility maximization.
Contribution
It characterizes optimal decision rules under various fairness constraints, highlighting when simple thresholds suffice and when more complex rules are necessary, including counter-intuitive results.
Findings
Group-specific thresholds are optimal for PPV and FOR parity.
Upper-bound thresholds can be optimal, sometimes selecting individuals with lowest utility.
Complex decision rules are needed for sufficiency, causing within-group unfairness.
Abstract
Binary decision making classifiers are not fair by default. Fairness requirements are an additional element to the decision making rationale, which is typically driven by maximizing some utility function. In that sense, algorithmic fairness can be formulated as a constrained optimization problem. This paper contributes to the discussion on how to implement fairness, focusing on the fairness concepts of positive predictive value (PPV) parity, false omission rate (FOR) parity, and sufficiency (which combines the former two). We show that group-specific threshold rules are optimal for PPV parity and FOR parity, similar to well-known results for other group fairness criteria. However, depending on the underlying population distributions and the utility function, we find that sometimes an upper-bound threshold rule for one group is optimal: utility maximization under PPV parity (or FOR…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
