Search Results

Documents authored by Kearns, Michael


Document
An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitation

Authors: Christopher Jung, Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Logan Stapleton, and Zhiwei Steven Wu

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 192, 2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021)


Abstract
We consider settings in which the right notion of fairness is not captured by simple mathematical definitions (such as equality of error rates across groups), but might be more complex and nuanced and thus require elicitation from individual or collective stakeholders. We introduce a framework in which pairs of individuals can be identified as requiring (approximately) equal treatment under a learned model, or requiring ordered treatment such as "applicant Alice should be at least as likely to receive a loan as applicant Bob". We provide a provably convergent and oracle efficient algorithm for learning the most accurate model subject to the elicited fairness constraints, and prove generalization bounds for both accuracy and fairness. This algorithm can also combine the elicited constraints with traditional statistical fairness notions, thus "correcting" or modifying the latter by the former. We report preliminary findings of a behavioral study of our framework using human-subject fairness constraints elicited on the COMPAS criminal recidivism dataset.

Cite as

Christopher Jung, Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Logan Stapleton, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitation. In 2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 192, pp. 2:1-2:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{jung_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2021.2,
  author =	{Jung, Christopher and Kearns, Michael and Neel, Seth and Roth, Aaron and Stapleton, Logan and Wu, Zhiwei Steven},
  title =	{{An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitation}},
  booktitle =	{2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021)},
  pages =	{2:1--2:19},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-187-0},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2021},
  volume =	{192},
  editor =	{Ligett, Katrina and Gupta, Swati},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2021.2},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-138701},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2021.2},
  annote =	{Keywords: Fairness, Fairness Elicitation}
}
Document
Lexicographically Fair Learning: Algorithms and Generalization

Authors: Emily Diana, Wesley Gill, Ira Globus-Harris, Michael Kearns, Aaron Roth, and Saeed Sharifi-Malvajerdi

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 192, 2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021)


Abstract
We extend the notion of minimax fairness in supervised learning problems to its natural conclusion: lexicographic minimax fairness (or lexifairness for short). Informally, given a collection of demographic groups of interest, minimax fairness asks that the error of the group with the highest error be minimized. Lexifairness goes further and asks that amongst all minimax fair solutions, the error of the group with the second highest error should be minimized, and amongst all of those solutions, the error of the group with the third highest error should be minimized, and so on. Despite its naturalness, correctly defining lexifairness is considerably more subtle than minimax fairness, because of inherent sensitivity to approximation error. We give a notion of approximate lexifairness that avoids this issue, and then derive oracle-efficient algorithms for finding approximately lexifair solutions in a very general setting. When the underlying empirical risk minimization problem absent fairness constraints is convex (as it is, for example, with linear and logistic regression), our algorithms are provably efficient even in the worst case. Finally, we show generalization bounds - approximate lexifairness on the training sample implies approximate lexifairness on the true distribution with high probability. Our ability to prove generalization bounds depends on our choosing definitions that avoid the instability of naive definitions.

Cite as

Emily Diana, Wesley Gill, Ira Globus-Harris, Michael Kearns, Aaron Roth, and Saeed Sharifi-Malvajerdi. Lexicographically Fair Learning: Algorithms and Generalization. In 2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 192, pp. 6:1-6:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{diana_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2021.6,
  author =	{Diana, Emily and Gill, Wesley and Globus-Harris, Ira and Kearns, Michael and Roth, Aaron and Sharifi-Malvajerdi, Saeed},
  title =	{{Lexicographically Fair Learning: Algorithms and Generalization}},
  booktitle =	{2nd Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021)},
  pages =	{6:1--6:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-187-0},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2021},
  volume =	{192},
  editor =	{Ligett, Katrina and Gupta, Swati},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2021.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-138748},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2021.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: Fair Learning, Lexicographic Fairness, Online Learning, Game Theory}
}
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail