Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1910.07870 v2 pith:LEQB6BBV submitted 2019-10-17 stat.ML cs.CYcs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

classification stat.MLcs.CYcs.ITcs.LGmath.IT
keywords accuracytrade-offdistributionsidealfairnessrespectgivenbiased
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A trade-off between accuracy and fairness is almost taken as a given in the existing literature on fairness in machine learning. Yet, it is not preordained that accuracy should decrease with increased fairness. Novel to this work, we examine fair classification through the lens of mismatched hypothesis testing: trying to find a classifier that distinguishes between two ideal distributions when given two mismatched distributions that are biased. Using Chernoff information, a tool in information theory, we theoretically demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, there always exist ideal distributions such that optimal fairness and accuracy (with respect to the ideal distributions) are achieved simultaneously: there is no trade-off. Moreover, the same classifier yields the lack of a trade-off with respect to ideal distributions while yielding a trade-off when accuracy is measured with respect to the given (possibly biased) dataset. To complement our main result, we formulate an optimization to find ideal distributions and derive fundamental limits to explain why a trade-off exists on the given biased dataset. We also derive conditions under which active data collection can alleviate the fairness-accuracy trade-off in the real world. Our results lead us to contend that it is problematic to measure accuracy with respect to data that reflects bias, and instead, we should be considering accuracy with respect to ideal, unbiased data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimisation Strategies for Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning: With and Without Demographics

    cs.LG 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A thesis combining fairness-aware forecasting via non-commutative polynomial optimization with a group-blind optimal-transport bias-repair method that needs only population-level group distributions.

Pith tools