Proxy Fairness
Open accessAbstract
We consider the problem of improving fairness when one lacks access to a dataset labeled with protected groups, making it difficult to take advantage of strategies that can improve fairness but require protected group labels, either at training or runtime. To address this, we investigate improving fairness metrics for proxy groups, and test whether doing so results in improved fairness for the true sensitive groups. Results on benchmark and real-world datasets demonstrate that such a proxy fairness strategy can work well in practice. However, we caution that the effectiveness likely depends on the choice of fairness metric, as well as how aligned the proxy groups are with the true protected groups in terms of the constrained model parameters.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Enforcing fairness constraints on a noisy sensitive attribute, without assumptions on the structure of the noise, is not guaranteed to lead to any improvement in the fairness properties of a model.
“The experimental results of Gupta et al. [44] have shown that enforcing fairness constraints on a noisy sensitive attribute, without assumptions on the structure of the noise, is not guaranteed to lead to any improvement in the fairness properties of our model.”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [44]
Section 4 (pp. 3–4) says poorly chosen proxy groups can worsen fairness for the true protected groups, supporting the claim that improvement is not guaranteed. But the paper presents this as a theoretical possibility, while its reported experiments generally found improvements (Conclusions, p. 8). It does not frame the result as an experiment on noisy sensitive attributes without assumptions about the noise structure. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- [1][1] H. Bauschke and J. Borwein. On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems. SIAM Review , pages 367-426, 1996. -
- [2][2] P. J. Bickel, E. A. Hammel, and J. W. O'Connell. Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science , pages 398-404, 1975. -
- [4][4] K. Canini, A. Cotter, M. M. Fard, M. R. Gupta, and J. Pfeifer. Fast and flexible monotonic functions with ensembles of lattices. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , 2016. -
- [5][5] C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proc. 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science , pages 214-226. ACM, 2012. -
- [6][6] B. Fish, J. Kun, and A. D. Lelkes. A confidence-based approach for balancing fairness and accuracy. Proc. SIAM Intl. Conf. Data Mining , 2016. -
- [7][7] G. Goh, A. Cotter, M. Gupta, and M. P. Friedlander. Satisfying real-world goals with dataset constraints. In NIPS , pages 2415-2423. 2016. -
- [8][8] M. R. Gupta, A. Cotter, J. Pfeifer, K. V oevodski, K. Canini, A. Mangylov, W. Moczydlowski, and A. V. Esbroeck. Monotonic calibrated interpolated look-up tables. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17(109):1-47, 2016. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v17/15-243.html . -
- [10][10] S. Hajian and J. Domino-Ferrer. A methodology for direct and indirect discrimination prevention in data mining. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 25(7):1445-1459, 2013. -
- [11][11] M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In NIPS , 2016. -
- [13][13] F. Kamiran, T. Calders, and M. Pechenizkiy. Discrimination aware decision tree learning. Discrimination aware decision tree learning , pages 869-874, 2010. -
- [14][14] T. Kamishima, S. Akaho, H. Asoh, and J. Sakuma. Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , pages 35-50, 2012. -
- [15][15] N. Kilbertus, M. Rojas Carulla, G. Parascandolo, M. Hardt, D. Janzing, and B. Schölkopf. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In NIPS , pages 656-666. 2017. -
- [17][17] R. K. Merton. The Matthew effect in science. arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00502.pdf , 2017. - · arXiv
- [18][18] C. Russell, M. J. Kusner, J. R. Loftus, and R. Silva. When worlds collide: Integrating differetn counterfactual assumptions in fairness. In NIPS . 2017. -
- [19][19] E. L. Thorndike. A constant error in psychological ratings. pages 25-29, 1920. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04053 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gupta, M., Cotter, A., Fard, M. M., & Wang, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1806.11212
- OpenAlex
- W4394664786
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, protected groups, fairness metrics, sensitive groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
