How do you know if your data is fair? And if it isn't, what can you do about it? Machine learning models are increasingly used to make high-stakes decisions, from predicting who gets a loan to estimating the likelihood that someone will reoffend. But these models are only as good as the data they learn from [Shahbazi 2023]. If the training data is biased, the model's decisions will likely be biased too [Hort 2024, Pagano 2023].

Equipping machine learning models with ethical and legal constraints is a serious issue; without this, the future of machine learning is at risk. This paper takes a step forward in this direction and focuses on ensuring machine learning models deliver fair decisions. In legal scholarships, the notion of fairness itself is evolving and multi-faceted. We set an overarching goal to develop a unified machine learning framework that is able to handle any definitions of fairness, their combinations, and also new definitions that might be stipulated in the future. To achieve our goal, we recycle two well-established machine learning techniques, privileged learning and distribution matching, and harmonize them for satisfying multi-faceted fairness definitions.

The Equalized Odds (for short, EO) is one of the most popular measures of discrimination used in the supervised learning setting. It ascertains fairness through the balance of the misclassification rates (false positive and negative) across the protected groups -- e.g., in the context of law enforcement, an African-American defendant who would not commit a future crime will have an equal opportunity of being released, compared to a non-recidivating Caucasian defendant. Despite this noble goal, it has been acknowledged in the literature that statistical tests based on the EO are oblivious to the underlying causal mechanisms that generated the disparity in the first place (Hardt et al. 2016). This leads to a critical disconnect between statistical measures readable from the data and the meaning of discrimination in the legal system, where compelling evidence that the observed disparity is tied to a specific causal process deemed unfair by society is required to characterize discrimination. The goal of this paper is to develop a principled approach to connect the statistical disparities characterized by the EO and the underlying, elusive, and frequently unobserved, causal mechanisms that generated such inequality. We start by introducing a new family of counterfactual measures that allows one to explain the misclassification disparities in terms of the underlying mechanisms in an arbitrary, non-parametric structural causal model. This will, in turn, allow legal and data analysts to interpret currently deployed classifiers through causal lens, linking the statistical disparities found in the data to the corresponding causal processes. Leveraging the new family of counterfactual measures, we develop a learning procedure to construct a classifier that is statistically efficient, interpretable, and compatible with the basic human intuition of fairness. We demonstrate our results through experiments in both real (COMPAS) and synthetic datasets.

We draw attention to an important, yet largely overlooked aspect of evaluating fairness for automated decision making systems---namely risk and welfare considerations. Our proposed family of measures corresponds to the long-established formulations of cardinal social welfare in economics, and is justified by the Rawlsian conception of fairness behind a veil of ignorance. The convex formulation of our welfare-based measures of fairness allows us to integrate them as a constraint into any convex loss minimization pipeline. Our empirical analysis reveals interesting trade-offs between our proposal and (a) prediction accuracy, (b) group discrimination, and (c) Dwork et al's notion of individual fairness. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, our work provides both heuristic justification and empirical evidence suggesting that a lower-bound on our measures often leads to bounded inequality in algorithmic outcomes; hence presenting the first computationally feasible mechanism for bounding individual-level inequality.

We address the problem of algorithmic fairness: ensuring that sensitive information does not unfairly influence the outcome of a classifier. We present an approach based on empirical risk minimization, which incorporates a fairness constraint into the learning problem. It encourages the conditional risk of the learned classifier to be approximately constant with respect to the sensitive variable. We derive both risk and fairness bounds that support the statistical consistency of our methodology. We specify our approach to kernel methods and observe that the fairness requirement implies an orthogonality constraint which can be easily added to these methods. We further observe that for linear models the constraint translates into a simple data preprocessing step. Experiments indicate that the method is empirically effective and performs favorably against state-of-the-art approaches.

In this interview series, we're meeting some of the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants to find out more about their research. We sat down with Prakhar Ganesh to learn about his work on responsible AI, which is focussed on the concept of multiplicity. We found out more about some of the projects he's been involved in, his future plans, and how he got into the field. Could you start with a quick introduction to yourself, where you're studying, and the broad topic of your research? My name is Prakhar Ganesh. I'm also affiliated with Mila, which is a research institute in Montreal. My supervisor is Professor Golnoosh Farnadi.

Algorithmic decisions about individuals require predictions that are not only accurate but also fair with respect to sensitive attributes such as gender and race. Causal notions of fairness align with legal requirements, yet many methods assume access to detailed knowledge of the underlying causal graph, which is a demanding assumption in practice. We propose a learning framework that achieves interventional fairness by leveraging a causal graph over \textit{clusters of variables}, which is substantially easier to estimate than a variable-level graph. With possible \textit{adjustment cluster sets} identified from such a cluster causal graph, our framework trains a prediction model by reducing the worst-case discrepancy between interventional distributions across these sets. To this end, we develop a computationally efficient barycenter kernel maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) that scales favorably with the number of sensitive attribute values. Extensive experiments show that our framework strikes a better balance between fairness and accuracy than existing approaches, highlighting its effectiveness under limited causal graph knowledge.

We investigate the problem of reliably assessing group fairness when labeled examples are few but unlabeled examples are plentiful.