Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing (1910.07870v2)

Published 17 Oct 2019 in stat.ML, cs.CY, cs.IT, cs.LG, and math.IT

Abstract: A trade-off between accuracy and fairness is almost taken as a given in the existing literature on fairness in machine learning. Yet, it is not preordained that accuracy should decrease with increased fairness. Novel to this work, we examine fair classification through the lens of mismatched hypothesis testing: trying to find a classifier that distinguishes between two ideal distributions when given two mismatched distributions that are biased. Using Chernoff information, a tool in information theory, we theoretically demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, there always exist ideal distributions such that optimal fairness and accuracy (with respect to the ideal distributions) are achieved simultaneously: there is no trade-off. Moreover, the same classifier yields the lack of a trade-off with respect to ideal distributions while yielding a trade-off when accuracy is measured with respect to the given (possibly biased) dataset. To complement our main result, we formulate an optimization to find ideal distributions and derive fundamental limits to explain why a trade-off exists on the given biased dataset. We also derive conditions under which active data collection can alleviate the fairness-accuracy trade-off in the real world. Our results lead us to contend that it is problematic to measure accuracy with respect to data that reflects bias, and instead, we should be considering accuracy with respect to ideal, unbiased data.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Sanghamitra Dutta (34 papers)
  2. Dennis Wei (64 papers)
  3. Hazar Yueksel (1 paper)
  4. Pin-Yu Chen (311 papers)
  5. Sijia Liu (204 papers)
  6. Kush R. Varshney (121 papers)
Citations (11)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.