In these processes, an evaluator estimates an individual's value to an institution.

We address the problem of fair classification in settings where data is scarce and unbalanced across demographic groups. Such low-data regimes are common in domains like medical imaging, where false negatives can have fatal consequences. We propose a novel approach \emph{OxEnsemble} for efficiently training ensembles and enforcing fairness in these low-data regimes. Unlike other approaches, we aggregate predictions across ensemble members, each trained to satisfy fairness constraints. By construction, \emph{OxEnsemble} is both data-efficient, carefully reusing held-out data to enforce fairness reliably, and compute-efficient, requiring little more compute than used to fine-tune or evaluate an existing model. We validate this approach with new theoretical guarantees. Experimentally, our approach yields more consistent outcomes and stronger fairness-accuracy trade-offs than existing methods across multiple challenging medical imaging classification datasets.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Naturally, we can achieve impact parity through purposeful treatment disparity. One line of papers aims to reconcile the two parities proposing disparate learning processes (DLPs). Here, the sensitive feature is used during training but a group-blind classifier is produced.

Biases in machine learning pose significant challenges, particularly when models amplify disparities that affect disadvantaged groups. Traditional bias mitigation techniques often lead to a {\itshape leveling-down effect}, whereby improving outcomes of disadvantaged groups comes at the expense of reduced performance for advantaged groups. This study introduces Bias Mitigation through Continual Learning (BM-CL), a novel framework that leverages the principles of continual learning to address this trade-off. We postulate that mitigating bias is conceptually similar to domain-incremental continual learning, where the model must adjust to changing fairness conditions, improving outcomes for disadvantaged groups without forgetting the knowledge that benefits advantaged groups. Drawing inspiration from techniques such as Learning without Forgetting and Elastic Weight Consolidation, we reinterpret bias mitigation as a continual learning problem. This perspective allows models to incrementally balance fairness objectives, enhancing outcomes for disadvantaged groups while preserving performance for advantaged groups. Experiments on synthetic and real-world image datasets, characterized by diverse sources of bias, demonstrate that the proposed framework mitigates biases while minimizing the loss of original knowledge. Our approach bridges the fields of fairness and continual learning, offering a promising pathway for developing machine learning systems that are both equitable and effective.

Fairness metrics utilizing the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) have gained increasing attention in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. In these domains, fairness is often evaluated over risk scores rather than binary outcomes, and a common challenge is that enforcing strict fairness can significantly degrade AUC performance. To address this challenge, we propose Fair Proportional Optimal Transport (FairPOT), a novel, model-agnostic post-processing framework that strategically aligns risk score distributions across different groups using optimal transport, but does so selectively by transforming a controllable proportion, i.e., the top-lambda quantile, of scores within the disadvantaged group. By varying lambda, our method allows for a tunable trade-off between reducing AUC disparities and maintaining overall AUC performance. Furthermore, we extend FairPOT to the partial AUC setting, enabling fairness interventions to concentrate on the highest-risk regions. Extensive experiments on synthetic, public, and clinical datasets show that FairPOT consistently outperforms existing post-processing techniques in both global and partial AUC scenarios, often achieving improved fairness with slight AUC degradation or even positive gains in utility. The computational efficiency and practical adaptability of FairPOT make it a promising solution for real-world deployment.

Undesirable biases encoded in the data are key drivers of algorithmic discrimination. Their importance is widely recognized in the algorithmic fairness literature, as well as legislation and standards on anti-discrimination in AI. Despite this recognition, data biases remain understudied, hindering the development of computational best practices for their detection and mitigation. In this work, we present three common data biases and study their individual and joint effect on algorithmic discrimination across a variety of datasets, models, and fairness measures. We find that underrepresentation of vulnerable populations in training sets is less conducive to discrimination than conventionally affirmed, while combinations of proxies and label bias can be far more critical. Consequently, we develop dedicated mechanisms to detect specific types of bias, and combine them into a preliminary construct we refer to as the Data Bias Profile (DBP). This initial formulation serves as a proof of concept for how different bias signals can be systematically documented. Through a case study with popular fairness datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the DBP in predicting the risk of discriminatory outcomes and the utility of fairness-enhancing interventions. Overall, this article bridges algorithmic fairness research and anti-discrimination policy through a data-centric lens.

We study how partial information about scoring rules affects fairness in strategic learning settings. In strategic learning, a learner deploys a scoring rule, and agents respond strategically by modifying their features -- at some cost -- to improve their outcomes. However, in our work, agents do not observe the scoring rule directly; instead, they receive a noisy signal of said rule. We consider two different agent models: (i) naive agents, who take the noisy signal at face value, and (ii) Bayesian agents, who update a prior belief based on the signal. Our goal is to understand how disparities in outcomes arise between groups that differ in their costs of feature modification, and how these disparities vary with the level of transparency of the learner's rule. For naive agents, we show that utility disparities can grow unboundedly with noise, and that the group with lower costs can, perhaps counter-intuitively, be disproportionately harmed under limited transparency. In contrast, for Bayesian agents, disparities remain bounded. We provide a full characterization of disparities across groups as a function of the level of transparency and show that they can vary non-monotonically with noise; in particular, disparities are often minimized at intermediate levels of transparency. Finally, we extend our analysis to settings where groups differ not only in cost, but also in prior beliefs, and study how this asymmetry influences fairness.

Racial disparities in healthcare expenditures are well-documented, yet the underlying drivers remain complex and require further investigation. This study employs causal and counterfactual path-specific effects to quantify how various factors, including socioeconomic status, insurance access, health behaviors, and health status, mediate these disparities. Using data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, we estimate how expenditures would differ under counterfactual scenarios in which the values of specific mediators were aligned across racial groups along selected causal pathways. A key challenge in this analysis is ensuring robustness against model misspecification while addressing the zero-inflation and right-skewness of healthcare expenditures. For reliable inference, we derive asymptotically linear estimators by integrating influence function-based techniques with flexible machine learning methods, including super learners and a two-part model tailored to the zero-inflated, right-skewed nature of healthcare expenditures.