Recently, there has been increased interest in fair generative models. In this work,we conduct, for the first time, an in-depth study on fairness measurement, acritical component in gauging progress on fair generative models.

Fairness in machine learning research is commonly framed in the context of classification tasks, leaving critical gaps in regression. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to measure intersectional fairness in regression tasks, going beyond the focus on single protected attributes from existing work to consider combinations of all protected attributes. Furthermore, we contend that it is insufficient to measure the average error of groups without regard for imbalanced domain preferences. Accordingly, we propose Intersectional Divergence (ID) as the first fairness measure for regression tasks that 1) describes fair model behavior across multiple protected attributes and 2) differentiates the impact of predictions in target ranges most relevant to users. We extend our proposal demonstrating how ID can be adapted into a loss function, IDLoss, that satisfies convergence guarantees and has piecewise smooth properties that enable practical optimization. Through an extensive experimental evaluation, we demonstrate how ID allows unique insights into model behavior and fairness, and how incorporating IDLoss into optimization can considerably improve single-attribute and intersectional model fairness while maintaining a competitive balance in predictive performance.

Recently, there has been increased interest in fair generative models. In this work,we conduct, for the first time, an in-depth study on fairness measurement, acritical component in gauging progress on fair generative models. First, we conduct a study that reveals that the existing fairnessmeasurement framework has considerable measurement errors, even when highlyaccurate sensitive attribute (SA) classifiers are used. These findings cast doubtson previously reported fairness improvements. Second, to address this issue,we propose CLassifier Error-Aware Measurement (CLEAM), a new frameworkwhich uses a statistical model to account for inaccuracies in SA classifiers.

Algorithms and models are increasingly deployed to inform decisions about people, inevitably affecting their lives. As a consequence, those in charge of developing these models must carefully evaluate their impact on different groups of people and favour group fairness, that is, ensure that groups determined by sensitive demographic attributes, such as race or sex, are not treated unjustly. To achieve this goal, the availability (awareness) of these demographic attributes to those evaluating the impact of these models is fundamental. Unfortunately, collecting and storing these attributes is often in conflict with industry practices and legislation on data minimisation and privacy. For this reason, it can be hard to measure the group fairness of trained models, even from within the companies developing them. In this work, we tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes, by using techniques from quantification, a supervised learning task concerned with directly providing group-level prevalence estimates (rather than individual-level class labels). We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem, as they are robust to inevitable distribution shifts while at the same time decoupling the (desirable) objective of measuring group fairness from the (undesirable) side effect of allowing the inference of sensitive attributes of individuals. More in detail, we show that fairness under unawareness can be cast as a quantification problem and solved with proven methods from the quantification literature. We show that these methods outperform previous approaches to measure demographic parity in five experimental protocols, corresponding to important challenges that complicate the estimation of classifier fairness under unawareness.

Algorithms and models are increasingly deployed to inform decisions about people, inevitably affecting their lives. As a consequence, those in charge of developing these models must carefully evaluate their impact on different groups of people and favour group fairness, that is, ensure that groups determined by sensitive demographic attributes, such as race or sex, are not treated unjustly. To achieve this goal, the availability (awareness) of these demographic attributes to those evaluating the impact of these models is fundamental. Unfortunately, collecting and storing these attributes is often in conflict with industry practices and legislation on data minimisation and privacy. For this reason, it can be hard to measure the group fairness of trained models, even from within the companies developing them. In this work, we tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes, by using techniques from quantification, a supervised learning task concerned with directly providing group-level prevalence estimates (rather than individual-level class labels). We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem, as they are robust to inevitable distribution shifts while at the same time decoupling the (desirable) objective of measuring group fairness from the (undesirable) side effect of allowing the inference of sensitive attributes of individuals. More in detail, we show that fairness under unawareness can be cast as a quantification problem and solved with proven methods from the quantification literature. We show that these methods outperform previous approaches to measure demographic parity in five experimental protocols, corresponding to important challenges that complicate the estimation of classifier fairness under unawareness.