6 Search Results for "Yona, Gal"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.38
Fairness and Efficiency in Two-Sided Matching Markets

Authors: Pallavi Jain, Palash Jha, and Shubham Solanki

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 360, 45th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2025)

Abstract
We propose a new fairness notion, motivated by the practical challenge of allocating teaching assistants (TAs) to courses in a department. Each course requires a certain number of TAs and each TA has preferences over the courses they want to assist. Similarly, each course instructor has preferences over the TAs who applied for their course. We demand fairness and efficiency for both sides separately, giving rise to the following criteria: (i) every course gets the required number of TAs and the average utility of the assigned TAs meets a threshold; (ii) the allocation of courses to TAs is envy-free, where a TA envies another TA if the former prefers the latter’s course and has a higher or equal grade in that course. Note that the definition of envy-freeness here differs from the one in the literature, and we call it merit-based envy-freeness. We show that the problem of finding a merit-based envy-free and efficient matching is NP-hard even for very restricted settings, such as two courses and uniform valuations; constant degree, constant capacity of TAs for every course, valuations in the range {0,1,2,3}, identical valuations from TAs, and even more. To find tractable results, we consider some restricted instances, such as, strict valuation of TAs for courses, the difference between the number of positively valued TAs for a course and the capacity, the number of positively valued TAs/courses, types of valuation functions, and obtained some polynomial-time solvable cases, showing the contrast with intractable results. We further studied the problem in the paradigm of parameterized algorithms and designed some exact and approximation algorithms.
Cite as

Pallavi Jain, Palash Jha, and Shubham Solanki. Fairness and Efficiency in Two-Sided Matching Markets. In 45th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 360, pp. 38:1-38:17, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{jain_et_al:LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.38,
  author =	{Jain, Pallavi and Jha, Palash and Solanki, Shubham},
  title =	{{Fairness and Efficiency in Two-Sided Matching Markets}},
  booktitle =	{45th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2025)},
  pages =	{38:1--38:17},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-406-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{360},
  editor =	{Aiswarya, C. and Mehta, Ruta and Roy, Subhajit},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.38},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-251186},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.38},
  annote =	{Keywords: Fair Matching, Envy-Freeness, Efficiency}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.7
Kernel Multiaccuracy

Authors: Carol Xuan Long, Wael Alghamdi, Alexander Glynn, Yixuan Wu, and Flavio P. Calmon

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 329, 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)

Abstract
Predefined demographic groups often overlook the subpopulations most impacted by model errors, leading to a growing emphasis on data-driven methods that pinpoint where models underperform. The emerging field of multi-group fairness addresses this by ensuring models perform well across a wide range of group-defining functions, rather than relying on fixed demographic categories. We demonstrate that recently introduced notions of multi-group fairness can be equivalently formulated as integral probability metrics (IPM). IPMs are the common information-theoretic tool that underlie definitions such as multiaccuracy, multicalibration, and outcome indistinguishably. For multiaccuracy, this connection leads to a simple, yet powerful procedure for achieving multiaccuracy with respect to an infinite-dimensional class of functions defined by a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS): first perform a kernel regression of a model’s errors, then subtract the resulting function from a model’s predictions. We combine these results to develop a post-processing method that improves multiaccuracy with respect to bounded-norm functions in an RKHS, enjoys provable performance guarantees, and, in binary classification benchmarks, achieves favorable multiaccuracy relative to competing methods.
Cite as

Carol Xuan Long, Wael Alghamdi, Alexander Glynn, Yixuan Wu, and Flavio P. Calmon. Kernel Multiaccuracy. In 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 329, pp. 7:1-7:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{long_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2025.7,
  author =	{Long, Carol Xuan and Alghamdi, Wael and Glynn, Alexander and Wu, Yixuan and Calmon, Flavio P.},
  title =	{{Kernel Multiaccuracy}},
  booktitle =	{6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)},
  pages =	{7:1--7:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-367-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{329},
  editor =	{Bun, Mark},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.7},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-231341},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.7},
  annote =	{Keywords: algorithmic fairness, integral probability metrics, information theory}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.22
When Does a Predictor Know Its Own Loss?

Authors: Aravind Gollakota, Parikshit Gopalan, Aayush Karan, Charlotte Peale, and Udi Wieder

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 329, 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)

Abstract
Given a predictor and a loss function, how well can we predict the loss that the predictor will incur on an input? This is the problem of loss prediction, a key computational task associated with uncertainty estimation for a predictor. In a classification setting, a predictor will typically predict a distribution over labels and hence have its own estimate of the loss that it will incur, given by the entropy of the predicted distribution. Should we trust this estimate? In other words, when does the predictor know what it knows and what it does not know? In this work we study the theoretical foundations of loss prediction. Our main contribution is to establish tight connections between nontrivial loss prediction and certain forms of multicalibration [Ursula Hébert-Johnson et al., 2018], a multigroup fairness notion that asks for calibrated predictions across computationally identifiable subgroups. Formally, we show that a loss predictor that is able to improve on the self-estimate of a predictor yields a witness to a failure of multicalibration, and vice versa. This has the implication that nontrivial loss prediction is in effect no easier or harder than auditing for multicalibration. We support our theoretical results with experiments that show a robust positive correlation between the multicalibration error of a predictor and the efficacy of training a loss predictor.
Cite as

Aravind Gollakota, Parikshit Gopalan, Aayush Karan, Charlotte Peale, and Udi Wieder. When Does a Predictor Know Its Own Loss?. In 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 329, pp. 22:1-22:22, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{gollakota_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2025.22,
  author =	{Gollakota, Aravind and Gopalan, Parikshit and Karan, Aayush and Peale, Charlotte and Wieder, Udi},
  title =	{{When Does a Predictor Know Its Own Loss?}},
  booktitle =	{6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)},
  pages =	{22:1--22:22},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-367-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{329},
  editor =	{Bun, Mark},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.22},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-231490},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.22},
  annote =	{Keywords: loss prediction, multicalibration, active learning, algorithmic fairness, calibration, predictive uncertainty, uncertainty estimation, machine learning theory}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.92
Decision-Making Under Miscalibration

Authors: Guy N. Rothblum and Gal Yona

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 251, 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023)

Abstract
How should we use ML-based predictions (e.g., risk of heart attack) to inform downstream binary classification decisions (e.g., undergoing a medical procedure)? When the risk estimates are perfectly calibrated, the answer is well understood: a classification problem’s cost structure induces an optimal treatment threshold j^⋆. In practice, however, predictors are often miscalibrated, and this can lead to harmful decisions. This raises a fundamental question: how should one use potentially miscalibrated predictions to inform binary decisions? In this work, we study this question from the perspective of algorithmic fairness. Specifically, we focus on the impact of decisions on protected demographic subgroups, when we are only given a bound on the predictor’s anticipated degree of subgroup-miscalibration. We formalize a natural (distribution-free) solution concept for translating predictions into decisions: given anticipated miscalibration of α, we propose using the threshold j that minimizes the worst-case regret over all α-miscalibrated predictors, where the regret is the difference in clinical utility between using the threshold in question and using the optimal threshold in hindsight. We provide closed form expressions for j when miscalibration is measured using both expected and maximum calibration error which reveal that it indeed differs from j^⋆ (the optimal threshold under perfect calibration).
Cite as

Guy N. Rothblum and Gal Yona. Decision-Making Under Miscalibration. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 251, pp. 92:1-92:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{rothblum_et_al:LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.92,
  author =	{Rothblum, Guy N. and Yona, Gal},
  title =	{{Decision-Making Under Miscalibration}},
  booktitle =	{14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023)},
  pages =	{92:1--92:20},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-263-1},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2023},
  volume =	{251},
  editor =	{Tauman Kalai, Yael},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.92},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-175951},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.92},
  annote =	{Keywords: risk prediction, calibration, algorithmic fairness, multi-group fairness}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.92
On Fairness and Stability in Two-Sided Matchings

Authors: Gili Karni, Guy N. Rothblum, and Gal Yona

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 215, 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022)

Abstract
There are growing concerns that algorithms, which increasingly make or influence important decisions pertaining to individuals, might produce outcomes that discriminate against protected groups. We study such fairness concerns in the context of a two-sided market, where there are two sets of agents, and each agent has preferences over the other set. The goal is producing a matching between the sets. Throughout this work, we use the example of matching medical residents (who we call "doctors") to hospitals. This setting has been the focus of a rich body of work. The seminal work of Gale and Shapley formulated a stability desideratum, and showed that a stable matching always exists and can be found in polynomial time. With fairness concerns in mind, it is natural to ask: might a stable matching be discriminatory towards some of the doctors? How can we obtain a fair matching? The question is interesting both when hospital preferences might be discriminatory, and also when each hospital’s preferences are fair. We study this question through the lens of metric-based fairness notions (Dwork et al. [ITCS 2012] and Kim et al. [ITCS 2020]). We formulate appropriate definitions of fairness and stability in the presence of a similarity metric, and ask: does a fair and stable matching always exist? Can such a matching be found in polynomial time? Can classical Gale-Shapley algorithms find such a matching? Our contributions are as follows: - Composition failures for classical algorithms. We show that composing the Gale-Shapley algorithm with fair hospital preferences can produce blatantly unfair outcomes. - New algorithms for finding fair and stable matchings. Our main technical contributions are efficient new algorithms for finding fair and stable matchings when: (i) the hospitals' preferences are fair, and (ii) the fairness metric satisfies a strong "proto-metric" condition: the distance between every two doctors is either zero or one. In particular, these algorithms also show that, in this setting, fairness and stability are compatible. - Barriers for finding fair and stable matchings in the general case. We show that if the hospital preferences can be unfair, or if the metric fails to satisfy the proto-metric condition, then no algorithm in a natural class can find a fair and stable matching. The natural class includes the classical Gale-Shapley algorithms and our new algorithms.
Cite as

Gili Karni, Guy N. Rothblum, and Gal Yona. On Fairness and Stability in Two-Sided Matchings. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 215, pp. 92:1-92:17, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{karni_et_al:LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.92,
  author =	{Karni, Gili and Rothblum, Guy N. and Yona, Gal},
  title =	{{On Fairness and Stability in Two-Sided Matchings}},
  booktitle =	{13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022)},
  pages =	{92:1--92:17},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-217-4},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2022},
  volume =	{215},
  editor =	{Braverman, Mark},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.92},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-156880},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2022.92},
  annote =	{Keywords: algorithmic fairness}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.16
Preference-Informed Fairness

Authors: Michael P. Kim, Aleksandra Korolova, Guy N. Rothblum, and Gal Yona

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 151, 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020)

Abstract
In this work, we study notions of fairness in decision-making systems when individuals have diverse preferences over the possible outcomes of the decisions. Our starting point is the seminal work of Dwork et al. [ITCS 2012] which introduced a notion of individual fairness (IF): given a task-specific similarity metric, every pair of individuals who are similarly qualified according to the metric should receive similar outcomes. We show that when individuals have diverse preferences over outcomes, requiring IF may unintentionally lead to less-preferred outcomes for the very individuals that IF aims to protect (e.g. a protected minority group). A natural alternative to IF is the classic notion of fair division, envy-freeness (EF): no individual should prefer another individual’s outcome over their own. Although EF allows for solutions where all individuals receive a highly-preferred outcome, EF may also be overly-restrictive for the decision-maker. For instance, if many individuals agree on the best outcome, then if any individual receives this outcome, they all must receive it, regardless of each individual’s underlying qualifications for the outcome. We introduce and study a new notion of preference-informed individual fairness (PIIF) that is a relaxation of both individual fairness and envy-freeness. At a high-level, PIIF requires that outcomes satisfy IF-style constraints, but allows for deviations provided they are in line with individuals' preferences. We show that PIIF can permit outcomes that are more favorable to individuals than any IF solution, while providing considerably more flexibility to the decision-maker than EF. In addition, we show how to efficiently optimize any convex objective over the outcomes subject to PIIF for a rich class of individual preferences. Finally, we demonstrate the broad applicability of the PIIF framework by extending our definitions and algorithms to the multiple-task targeted advertising setting introduced by Dwork and Ilvento [ITCS 2019].
Cite as

Michael P. Kim, Aleksandra Korolova, Guy N. Rothblum, and Gal Yona. Preference-Informed Fairness. In 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 151, pp. 16:1-16:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{kim_et_al:LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.16,
  author =	{Kim, Michael P. and Korolova, Aleksandra and Rothblum, Guy N. and Yona, Gal},
  title =	{{Preference-Informed Fairness}},
  booktitle =	{11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020)},
  pages =	{16:1--16:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-134-4},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2020},
  volume =	{151},
  editor =	{Vidick, Thomas},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.16},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-117010},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.16},
  annote =	{Keywords: algorithmic fairness}
}
  • Refine by Type
  • 6 Document/PDF
  • 3 Document/HTML

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 3 2025
  • 1 2023
  • 1 2022
  • 1 2020

  • Refine by Author
  • 3 Rothblum, Guy N.
  • 3 Yona, Gal
  • 1 Alghamdi, Wael
  • 1 Calmon, Flavio P.
  • 1 Glynn, Alexander
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Series/Journal
  • 6 LIPIcs

  • Refine by Classification
  • 2 Theory of computation → Theory and algorithms for application domains
  • 1 Mathematics of computing → Information theory
  • 1 Theory of computation → Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
  • 1 Theory of computation → Machine learning theory
  • 1 Theory of computation → Models of learning

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 5 algorithmic fairness
  • 2 calibration
  • 1 Efficiency
  • 1 Envy-Freeness
  • 1 Fair Matching
  • Show More...

Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2026 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact