Paper detail

To the Fairness Frontier and Beyond: Identifying, Quantifying, and Optimizing the Fairness-Accuracy Pareto Frontier

Algorithmic fairness has emerged as an important consideration when using machine learning to make high-stakes societal decisions. Yet, improved fairness often comes at the expense of model accuracy. While aspects of the fairness-accuracy tradeoff have been studied, most work reports the fairness and accuracy of various models separately; this makes model comparisons nearly impossible without a model-agnostic metric that reflects the balance of the two desiderata. We seek to identify, quantify, and optimize the empirical Pareto frontier of the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. Specifically, we identify and outline the empirical Pareto frontier through Tradeoff-between-Fairness-and-Accuracy (TAF) Curves; we then develop a metric to quantify this Pareto frontier through the weighted area under the TAF Curve which we term the Fairness-Area-Under-the-Curve (FAUC). TAF Curves provide the first empirical, model-agnostic characterization of the Pareto frontier, while FAUC provides the first metric to impartially compare model families on both fairness and accuracy. Both TAF Curves and FAUC can be employed with all group fairness definitions and accuracy measures. Next, we ask: Is it possible to expand the empirical Pareto frontier and thus improve the FAUC for a given collection of fitted models? We answer affirmately by developing a novel fair model stacking framework, FairStacks, that solves a convex program to maximize the accuracy of model ensemble subject to a score-bias constraint. We show that optimizing with FairStacks always expands the empirical Pareto frontier and improves the FAUC; we additionally study other theoretical properties of our proposed approach. Finally, we empirically validate TAF, FAUC, and FairStacks through studies on several real benchmark data sets, showing that FairStacks leads to major improvements in FAUC that outperform existing algorithmic fairness approaches.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.