This makes it easily extensible and much more expressive than existing toolkits. It supports all 9 and all 10 of the decision-based group metrics of two popular review articles.

Classical PAC generalization bounds on the prediction risk of a classifier are insufficient to provide theoretical guarantees on fairness when the goal is to learn models balancing predictive risk and fairness constraints. We propose a PAC-Bayesian framework for deriving generalization bounds for fairness, covering both stochastic and deterministic classifiers. For stochastic classifiers, we derive a fairness bound using standard PAC-Bayes techniques. Whereas for deterministic classifiers, as usual PAC-Bayes arguments do not apply directly, we leverage a recent advance in PAC-Bayes to extend the fairness bound beyond the stochastic setting. Our framework has two advantages: (i) It applies to a broad class of fairness measures that can be expressed as a risk discrepancy, and (ii) it leads to a self-bounding algorithm in which the learning procedure directly optimizes a trade-off between generalization bounds on the prediction risk and on the fairness. We empirically evaluate our framework with three classical fairness measures, demonstrating not only its usefulness but also the tightness of our bounds.

As machine learning becomes prevalent in a widening array of sensitive applications such as job hiring and criminal justice, one critical aspect that machine learning classifiers should respect is to ensure fairness: guaranteeing the irrelevancy of a prediction output to sensitive attributes such as gender and race. In this work, we develop a kernel density estimation trick to quantify fairness measures that capture the degree of the irrelevancy. A key feature of our approach is that quantified fairness measures can be expressed as differentiable functions w.r.t.

This paper presents the AR fairness metamodel, aimed at formally representing, analyzing, and comparing fairness scenarios. The metamodel provides an abstract representation of fairness, enabling the formal definition of fairness notions. We instantiate the metamodel through several examples, with a particular focus on comparing the notions of equity and equality. We use the Tiles framework, which offers modular components that can be interconnected to represent various definitions of fairness. Its primary objective is to support the operationalization of AR-based fairness definitions in a range of scenarios, providing a robust method for defining, comparing, and evaluating fairness. Tiles has an open-source implementation for fairness modeling and evaluation.

With the on-going integration of machine learning systems into the everyday social life of millions the notion of fairness becomes an ever increasing priority in their development. Fairness notions commonly rely on protected attributes to assess potential biases. Here, the majority of literature focuses on discrete setups regarding both target and protected attributes. The literature on continuous attributes especially in conjunction with regression -- we refer to this as \emph{continuous fairness} -- is scarce. A common strategy is iterative null-space projection which as of now has only been explored for linear models or embeddings such as obtained by a non-linear encoder. We improve on this by generalizing to kernel methods, significantly extending the scope. This yields a model and fairness-score agnostic method for kernel embeddings applicable to continuous protected attributes. We demonstrate that our novel approach in conjunction with Support Vector Regression (SVR) provides competitive or improved performance across multiple datasets in comparisons to other contemporary methods.

This makes it easily extensible and much more expressive than existing toolkits. It supports all 9 and all 10 of the decision-based group metrics of two popular review articles.

However, in computer vision or natural language applications, it is common to start with a large generic model and then fine-tune to a specific use-case.

The rapid trend of deploying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems in socially consequential domains has raised growing concerns about their trustworthiness, including potential discriminatory behaviours. Research in algorithmic fairness has generated a proliferation of mathematical definitions and metrics, yet persistent misconceptions and limitations -- both within and beyond the fairness community -- limit their effectiveness, such as an unreached consensus on its understanding, prevailing measures primarily tailored to binary group settings, and superficial handling for intersectional contexts. Here we critically remark on these misconceptions and argue that fairness cannot be reduced to purely technical constraints on models; we also examine the limitations of existing fairness measures through conceptual analysis and empirical illustrations, showing their limited applicability in the face of complex real-world scenarios, challenging prevailing views on the incompatibility between accuracy and fairness as well as that among fairness measures themselves, and outlining three worth-considering principles in the design of fairness measures. We believe these findings will help bridge the gap between technical formalisation and social realities and meet the challenges of real-world AI/ML deployment.