Learning Fair Representations with High-Confidence Guarantees
Yuhong Luo, Austin Hoag, Philip S. Thomas

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new framework called FRG for learning fair data representations with high-confidence guarantees, ensuring fairness across multiple tasks and models.
Contribution
The paper formally defines high-confidence fairness guarantees in representation learning and proposes the FRG framework to achieve this across all downstream tasks.
Findings
FRG provides high-confidence fairness guarantees for multiple tasks.
Empirical results show FRG effectively limits unfairness in downstream models.
FRG outperforms baseline methods in fairness metrics.
Abstract
Representation learning is increasingly employed to generate representations that are predictive across multiple downstream tasks. The development of representation learning algorithms that provide strong fairness guarantees is thus important because it can prevent unfairness towards disadvantaged groups for all downstream prediction tasks. To prevent unfairness towards disadvantaged groups in all downstream tasks, it is crucial to provide representation learning algorithms that provide fairness guarantees. In this paper, we formally define the problem of learning representations that are fair with high confidence. We then introduce the Fair Representation learning with high-confidence Guarantees (FRG) framework, which provides high-confidence guarantees for limiting unfairness across all downstream models and tasks, with user-defined upper bounds. After proving that FRG ensures…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 Conference Withdrawn Submission
- The paper tackles a very important problem in the fairness literature, especially given how in many situations the data provider is not able to know how and for which task their data will be used. - The authors do a good job at motivating the problem and summarize the existing literature. - The paper is easy to follow and generally well written; Figure 1 is appreciated as the reader can understand the flow of FRG. - The mathematical statements seem correct.
The central component of this framework relies on the result by Gupta et al. (2021), where the authors utilize existing upper bounds. This makes the evaluation of the paper necessarily focused on (a) the specifics of the framework, (b) the theoretical results, and (c) the downstream outcomes. While I attach my questions below on both (a) and (c), my main criticism is as follows. The authors build a framework on an upper bound of an upper bound of the quantity of interest, which is further adjus
1. The authors have put thought and care into describing various considerations related to instantiating their framework in practical settings (i.e., in terms of making the theoretical high-probability bound practical), in particular analyzing and drawing on solutions proposed in a significant number of existing works. 2. The provided experiments appear to demonstrate that their implementation of the proposed framework indeed obtains the claimed fairness guarantees and achieves respectable perfo
Unfortunately, in its current state the paper falls short both (partially) on the experimental and, especially, on the theoretical side; this is why I cannot recommend acceptance now (and I think that too significant of a revision would be necessary to shift this opinion in this submission cycle). (1) The paper prominently promises to conduct a theoretical analysis of their framework. Now, the framework itself is nothing but the proposal to take a bound recently proved in Gupta et al (2021), wh
1. Surprisingly simple framework for high-confidence fair-representation learning, an important question in fairness 2. An extensive overview of recent progress in fair representation learning with sufficient motivation, even for first-time readers 3. Promising experimental results
1. The overall framework seems quite similar to the Seldonian algorithm design of Thomas et al. (2019), e.g., see Fig. 1 of Thomas et al. (2019)). Although it is true that Thomas et al. (2019) only considered fair classification experiments, as mentioned in this paper's related works, the proposed FRG also has an objective function related to the expressiveness of the representation, and some of the details even match; for instance, the discussions on "$1 - \delta$ confidence upper bound" on pg.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEthics and Social Impacts of AI
