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 address the problem of performing regression while ensuring demographic parity, even without access to sensitive attributes during inference. We present a general-purpose post-processing algorithm that, using accurate estimates of the regression function and a sensitive attribute predictor, generates predictions that meet the demographic parity constraint. Our method involves discretization and stochastic minimization of a smooth convex function.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and comments; we are delighted to see this positive response. ARL would only improve the performance for groups that are computationally identifiable groups over (x,y). Our experiments on label bias (Figure 1(b)) shed some light on this. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This along with your other comment on equipping robustness ignited interesting discussions amongst the authors.

In this paper, we study the problem of fair sequential decision making with biased linear bandit feedback. At each round, a player selects an action described by a covariate and by a sensitive attribute. The perceived reward is a linear combination of the covariates of the chosen action, but the player only observes a biased evaluation of this reward, depending on the sensitive attribute. To characterize the difficulty of this problem, we design a phased elimination algorithm that corrects the unfair evaluations, and establish upper bounds on its regret. We show that the worst-case regret is smaller than $\mathcal{O}(\kappa_* ^{1/3}\log(T)^{1/3}T^{2/3})$, where $\kappa_*$ is an explicit geometrical constant characterizing the difficulty of bias estimation. We prove lower bounds on the worst-case regret for some sets of actions showing that this rate is tight up to a possible sub-logarithmic factor. We also derive gap-dependent upper bounds on the regret, and matching lower bounds for some problem instance. Interestingly, these results reveal a transition between a regime where the problem is as difficult as its unbiased counterpart, and a regime where it can be much harder.

Fair regression methods have the potential to mitigate societal bias concerns in health care, but there has been little work on penalized fair regression when multiple groups experience such bias. We propose a general regression framework that addresses this gap with unfairness penalties for multiple groups. Our approach is demonstrated for binary outcomes with true positive rate disparity penalties. It can be efficiently implemented through reduction to a cost-sensitive classification problem. We additionally introduce novel score functions for automatically selecting penalty weights. Our penalized fair regression methods are empirically studied in simulations, where they achieve a fairness-accuracy frontier beyond that of existing comparison methods. Finally, we apply these methods to a national multi-site primary care study of chronic kidney disease to develop a fair classifier for end-stage renal disease. There we find substantial improvements in fairness for multiple race and ethnicity groups who experience societal bias in the health care system without any appreciable loss in overall fit.

We study fairness in collaborative-filtering recommender systems, which are sensitive to discrimination that exists in historical data. Biased data can lead collaborative-filtering methods to make unfair predictions for users from minority groups. We identify the insufficiency of existing fairness metrics and propose four new metrics that address different forms of unfairness. These fairness metrics can be optimized by adding fairness terms to the learning objective. Experiments on synthetic and real data show that our new metrics can better measure fairness than the baseline, and that the fairness objectives effectively help reduce unfairness.

We study fairness in collaborative-filtering recommender systems, which are sensitive to discrimination that exists in historical data.

In large part, the literature has focused on formalizing fairness into quantitative definitions and using them to solve a discrimination problem in a certain dataset.

Machine learning is now being used to make crucial decisions about people's lives.