Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making (1806.01059v2)

Published 4 Jun 2018 in cs.LG, cs.IR, and stat.ML

Abstract: People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: giving adequate success rates to specifically protected groups. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention, and this paper advances this less explored direction. The paper introduces a method for probabilistically mapping user records into a low-rank representation that reconciles individual fairness and the utility of classifiers and rankings in downstream applications. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on a variety of real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting.

Essay on "iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making"

The paper "iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making" introduces an innovative approach to enhance fairness in machine learning models, particularly targeting the underexplored paradigm of individual fairness. The authors aim to develop a representation learning method that probabilistically maps user records into a low-rank representation. This method reconciles the dual objectives of upholding individual fairness and maintaining high utility in classifiers and rankings in downstream applications.

Key Contributions and Methodology

The focus on individual fairness stems from the need to ensure that people with similar qualifications and characteristics receive similar treatment, irrespective of their membership in any sensitive group or attribute. Unlike the traditional emphasis on group fairness—which ensures equitable treatment across predefined demographic groups—the authors of this paper assert the importance of individual fairness in capturing nuanced discrimination that may occur at the individual level.

The iFair approach stands out in its ability to address the limitations of its predecessors. Unlike methods that require predefined sensitive attributes at the training phase, iFair supports a versatile, application-agnostic framework, accommodating unknown sensitive attributes during the decision-making phase. This aspect enables broad applicability across various classifiers and regression-based models without compromising on fairness.

The authors employ a probabilistic clustering approach, utilizing prototype vectors and assigning user records to clusters based on similarity measures. The core idea is to minimize distance preservation between non-sensitive attributes in the representation space. An elegant balance is struck via an objective function combining utility (data loss minimization) and individual fairness, where pairwise distances between records on non-sensitive attributes are judiciously preserved.

Experimental Results

The research is thoroughly evaluated using a range of datasets, including the widely-recognized COMPAS dataset, the Census Income dataset, German Credit data, and datasets from Airbnb and Xing. These datasets provide a diverse ground to test the versatility and robustness of iFair across both classification and regression tasks. The experimental findings are significant; the iFair representations consistently demonstrate superior individual fairness—measured by consistency with k-nearest neighbors—compared to traditional baselines. Furthermore, this is often achieved with minimal sacrifice to utility, marked by accuracy and AUC in classification, and Kendall's Tau and mean average precision in learning-to-rank tasks.

Interestingly, iFair also shows an implicit alignment with group fairness measures such as equality of opportunity, despite not explicitly optimizing for them. This suggests that individual fairness might inherently address many aspects of group fairness, particularly in contexts where sensitive attributes are not entirely discarded but rather appropriately obfuscated.

Implications and Future Directions

The theoretical and practical implications of this research are notable. In a rapidly evolving landscape where machine learning-driven decisions have profound societal impacts, methodologies like iFair offer a more equitable foundation by advocating fairness at an individual level. This becomes increasingly relevant in subconscious biases that traditional group fairness models fail to address.

Future work could further explore how iFair could integrate with contemporary adversarial learning techniques to robustify fairness measures against more sophisticated biases. Moreover, expanding its adaptability to other machine learning paradigms, such as reinforcement learning, while evaluating computational efficiency and scalability, would enhance its applicability in real-world scenarios.

In conclusion, the iFair framework distinctively advances the discourse on fairness in algorithmic decision-making. By prioritizing individual fairness, it not only elevates ethical standards but also preserves analytical rigor across various machine learning applications. This nuanced approach ensures that technological progress aligns with ethical correctness, catering to an equitable digital future.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Preethi Lahoti (13 papers)
  2. Krishna P. Gummadi (68 papers)
  3. Gerhard Weikum (75 papers)
Citations (160)