{
  "File Number": "1092",
  "Title": "Fair Wrapping for Black-box Predictions",
  "Limitation": "Given the context of fairness, it is important to highlight possible limitations of our approach and the potential social harm from such misuse. We highlight two of these for our TOPDOWN approach. Firstly, our approach has shown to have failure cases in small data cases. This can be seen in the experiments on German Credit dataset (SI, Section XIII-XV). This, we believe, has a formal basis in our approach. For instances, EOO requires accurate data posterior estimation which may be difficult in small data regimes. Secondly, TOPDOWN is of course not unilaterally better than all other post-processing fairness approaches – there is No Free Lunch. As such, we do not claim that our instantiation of TOPDOWN is optimal in CVAR, EOO, or SP. However, considering that such different fairness models instantiated in the same algorithm can lead to competitive results with the respective state of the art, the avenue for improved instantiations or accurate extensions to new fairness constraints appears promising. We leave these for future work. Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding\nYM received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 882396), the Israel Science Foundation(grant number 993/17), Tel Aviv University Center for AI and Data Science (TAD), and the Yandex Initiative for Machine Learning at Tel Aviv University. AS and LX thank members of the ANU Humanising Machine Intelligence program for discussions on fairness and ethical concerns in AI, and the NeCTAR Research Cloud for providing computational resources, an Australian research platform supported by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.",
  "Reviewer Comment": "Reviewer_3: Strengths\nThe paper proposes a method to adjust the outputs of any black-box model to be compatible with a desired fairness goal. Having this ability is quite valuable given that the usage of pre-trained, off-the-shelf models is quite prevalent today which, however, may not be trained with any fairness considerations in mind.\nThe paper provides a solid theoretical analysis of the guarantees obtainable from the proposed algorithm along several dimensions, such as the divergence of the wrapped model from its source and the amount of residual unfairness in the wrapped predictions.\nWeaknesses\nThe paper has a number of clarity issues:\nThe intuition behind many definitions and results are not clear:\nSome results (e.g. theorem 1 and 2, lemma 3) propose bounds, but I have no intuition about what they mean. How strict are they? How strict are they relative to the strength of the assumptions made? This makes it hard to understand whether they are meaningful.\nSome definitions are unclear, see the questions part for more details.\nA lot of the analysis starts off by introducing some definitions or statements whose meaning only becomes clear later on. It would be very helpful to first provide an intuition, e.g. say what the goal of introducing a certain concept is and what idea it captures, for better understanding the analysis.\nIn the intro, a number of desiderata for the post-processing process are introduced (a-f, and later g). While they mostly make sense, some (esp. c and d) are somewhat vague (see questions) and I am not sure what is meant by e.g. addressing them from a representation point of view and what the difference between the analytical and algorithmic perspective is. It feels like the points are also not addressed in a systematic manner, e.g. in section 4 (b) and (e,f) are mentioned and another point (g) is introduced, in section 5 (c) and (d, f) are mentioned. This scattering, in combination with the unexpressive names of the requirements makes it hard for me to keep track of them and make them overall not very useful. It would be helpful to formulate the requirements more clearly, address them in a more systematic way, and give them more meaningful names.\nThe paper introduces a lot of concepts, esp. in section 3, which subsequently seem to be under-used. For instance, section 3 sets up core concepts using measure spaces, but then this level of abstraction seems to be unnecessary for the remaining paper. It appears like the exposition could be simplified by using more standard and simpler probabilistic notation instead. I did not check all the proofs in the appendix though, maybe this level of abstraction is needed there, but it comes at a high cost in terms of notational complexity which seems not immediately justified.\nSome concepts are introduced early (e.g. in section 3), but only instantiated a lot later in the paper, which makes it hard to understand them both when they first appear as well as when they are properly defined/used, because you need to go back and re-read their definitions. For example,\nη\nt\nis introduced in section 4, but not really instantiated until section 6 and similarly for mixture measure M in section 3. It would be great to provide at least some intuition behind those concepts when first introducing them and ideally moving their introductions and instantiations closer together.\nThe implications of some of the theoretical results are unclear, i.e. what do the bounds mean? See clarity above for more details. This makes it hard to judge how useful the derived bounds are.\nSome assumptions might be unrealistic for practical deployment, most importantly the assumption of having access to a true posterior\nη\n∗\n. See the first question for more details.\nQuestions:\nThe analysis, in particular also the methodology to achieve fair outputs, relies on\nη\n∗\n, which in section 3, line 85 is defined as the true posterior, approximated from data. What does that mean? Using which approximation scheme? How is it related to some potential other, ground truth posterior? And most importantly, how is the assumption of having access to a true posterior realistic in practice? Without this quantity the fairness constraints in section 6 do not work. There are experiments in section 8, so there must be some way to approximate\nη\n∗\n, but I don't know how it's done (though there seem to be limitations with small datasets).\nThe proposed method for achieving fairness is based on splitting the\nα\n-trees at their root based on the different sensitive feature values. This means that data cannot be shared between the different sub-trees corresponding to different groups. Could this lead to issues in cases where some sub-groups are minorities and thus, insufficient training data for them is available? The minority-setting can be an issue in many scenarios where fairness is of concern.\nSome concepts are not clear:\nThe paper uses the term \"twisted\" posterior, but it's not fully clear to me what the characteristic property of a twist is and whether it just means \"bias\" in the conventional way used in the fairness literature, or whether there is some additional meaning to it. Could you clarify that?\nWhat is the mixture measure M introduced in section 3 and why do you need it?\nRegarding requirements (c) and (d), what do you mean by strong algorithmic guarantees (on what?) and what is meant by explainability, e.g. instance-based or for the whole model, about the difference of\nη\nf\nfrom\nη\nu\nor\nη\nf\n's behavior in general, etc.?\nMinor clarifications:\nDoes theorem 2 imply that the loss is 0 when the conditions hold?\nIt would be good to define the domain of\nα\nin section 3. Not all values are permissible and I struggled to understand whether one would generally choose it from e.g. (0, 1), (-1, 1) (with exception of 0),\n(\n−\n∞\n,\n+\n∞\n)\n, etc.\nPotential extension (I do not expect this to be included in this paper): the proposed method can be used to correct twists/biases in black-box predictions. It might be interesting to explore whether the technique can be used to tackle issues other than fairness as well, for example in the context of robustness, to correct for distribution shifts between training and deployment.\nLimitations:\nThe main practical limitations I can see are the assumption of the availability of a true posterior and the problem having sufficient data for learning\nα\n-trees for minority groups. These issues are insufficiently addressed in the paper.\nEthics Flag: No\nSoundness: 3 good\nPresentation: 2 fair\nContribution: 2 fair\n\nReviewer_4: Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in fairness and the improper loss function and my expertise are in interpretability. I can not evaluate the theoretical section due to my incompetence, but this paper is mostly theoretical so my review will be quite shallow.\nStrengths\nAlthough the empirical performance is not as good as other methods, this wrapper method seems to be the first one that can adapt to different fairness criteria in a post-hoc way. And the conclusion also admits that.\nWeaknesses\nQuestionable claim about interpretability.\nQuestions:\nI'm wondering why this algorithm is claimed to be interpretable? The only thing related is this method uses a tree-based model to correct for the bias. But an algorithm consisting of multiple trees like boosting or random forests can be equally complex as a DNN and thus should not be claimed interpretable.\nLimitations:\nNone\nEthics Flag: No\nSoundness: 3 good\nPresentation: 3 good\nContribution: 3 good\n\nReviewer_5: Strengths\nMathematically rigorous derivation.\nImportant/interesting use-case: e.g. finetuning a blackbox model to ensure fairness.\nWeaknesses\nHard to read. (See \"Presentation\" below.)\nRelation to some related work is unclear. (See \"Related\" below.)\nPresentation & Evaluation\nWhile I appreciate the mathematical rigor I found the overall work hard to read. In particular, I think the mathematical presentation almost hides the conceptual approach: i) get blackbox model, ii) train decision tree to debias the posterior. While the choice of loss to train the decision tree is theoretically well-motivated, in the end, it appears quite standard. Similarly, it remains unclear what the exact contribution and what an instantiation of a prior approach is, e.g. TopDown from [14]. (Note: I don't think instantiating prior work to reach a particular goal is problematic.)\nFurther, on the first read, it was unclear to me that section 3 recounts background from [24] rather than a new contribution. At the same time, it appears not to be self-contained as binary task is taken from [24] without much explanation.\nI also found the evaluation section hard to read as all results are pressed in Figure 4. The selection of results is also quite small (although I appreciated the full additional results in the supplementary material). Lastly, it seems that the accuracy of the classifier is quite bad (see Questions below).\nMinor Presentation issues:\nL240 \"of mapping\" seems to miss an article.\n\"Limitations and conclusion\" (L335) does not have a section number.\nWhile normally I don't mind if papers use modified vspace settings, it seems a little overdone here to the point where pages aver visually very dense.\nRelated Work\nThe paper does not discuss to which fairness notions it is limited to, i.e. group fairness, and how this relates to other notions of fairness, i.e. individual fairness, and how they are applied in the research community.\nQuestions:\nCan you clarify which parts are your key contributions, especially compared to [24] and [14]?\nWhat does MD (in Figure 4 and Section 8) measure? Is it the accuracy? If so, it seems bad for a binary task.\nLimitations:\nThe authors provide a Limitation section, which seems to be adequate.\nEthics Flag: No\nSoundness: 4 excellent\nPresentation: 2 fair\nContribution: 2 fair",
  "Limitations_refined": "Given the context of fairness, it is important to highlight possible limitations of our approach and the potential social harm from such misuse. We highlight two of these for our TOPDOWN approach. Firstly, our approach has shown to have failure cases in small data cases. This can be seen in the experiments on German Credit dataset (SI, Section XIII-XV). This, we believe, has a formal basis in our approach. For instances, EOO requires accurate data posterior estimation which may be difficult in small data regimes. Secondly, TOPDOWN is of course not unilaterally better than all other post-processing fairness approaches – there is No Free Lunch. As such, we do not claim that our instantiation of TOPDOWN is optimal in CVAR, EOO, or SP. However, considering that such different fairness models instantiated in the same algorithm can lead to competitive results with the respective state of the art, the avenue for improved instantiations or accurate extensions to new fairness constraints appears promising. We leave these for future work. Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding\nYM received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 882396), the Israel Science Foundation(grant number 993/17), Tel Aviv University Center for AI and Data Science (TAD), and the Yandex Initiative for Machine Learning at Tel Aviv University.",
  "8 Limitations and Conclusion": "Given the context of fairness, it is important to highlight possible limitations of our approach and the potential social harm from such misuse. We highlight two of these for our TOPDOWN approach. Firstly, our approach has shown to have failure cases in small data cases. This can be seen in the experiments on German Credit dataset (SI, Section XIII-XV). This, we believe, has a formal basis in our approach. For instances, EOO requires accurate data posterior estimation which may be difficult in small data regimes. Secondly, TOPDOWN is of course not unilaterally better than all other post-processing fairness approaches – there is No Free Lunch. As such, we do not claim that our instantiation of TOPDOWN is optimal in CVAR, EOO, or SP. However, considering that such different fairness models instantiated in the same algorithm can lead to competitive results with the respective state of the art, the avenue for improved instantiations or accurate extensions to new fairness constraints appears promising. We leave these for future work.\nAcknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding\nYM received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 882396), the Israel Science Foundation(grant number 993/17), Tel Aviv University Center for AI and Data Science (TAD), and the Yandex Initiative for Machine Learning at Tel Aviv University. AS and LX thank members of the ANU Humanising Machine Intelligence program for discussions on fairness and ethical concerns in AI, and the NeCTAR Research Cloud for providing computational resources, an Australian research platform supported by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.",
  "abstractText": "We introduce a new family of techniques to post-process (“wrap\") a black-box classifier in order to reduce its bias. Our technique builds on the recent analysis of improper loss functions whose optimization can correct any twist in prediction, unfairness being treated as a twist. In the post-processing, we learn a wrapper function which we define as an ↵-tree, which modifies the prediction. We provide two generic boosting algorithms to learn ↵-trees. We show that our modification has appealing properties in terms of composition of ↵-trees, generalization, interpretability, and KL divergence between modified and original predictions. We exemplify the use of our technique in three fairness notions: conditional valueat-risk, equality of opportunity, and statistical parity; and provide experiments on several readily available datasets.",
  "1 Introduction": "The social impact of Machine Learning (ML) has seen a dramatic increase over the past decade – enough so that the bias of model outputs must be accounted for alongside accuracy [1, 14, 35]. Considering the various number of fairness targets [20] and the energy and CO2 footprint of ML [19, 28], the combinatorics of training accurate and fair models is non-trivial. This is especially so given the inherit incompatibilities of fairness constraints [17] and the underlying tension of satisfying fairness whilst maintaining accuracy. One trend in the field \"decouples\" the two constraints by post-processing pretrained (accurate) models to achieve fairer outputs [35]. Post-processing may be the only option if we have no access to the model’s training data / algorithm / hyperparameters (etc.).\nWithin the post-processing approach, three trends have emerged: learning a new fair model close to the black-box, tweaking the output subject to fairness constraints, and exploiting sets of classifiers. If the task is class probability estimation [24], the estimated black-box is an accurate but potentially unfair posterior ⌘u : X! [0, 1] which neither can be opened nor trained further. The goal is then to learn a fair posterior ⌘f from it. In addition to the black-box constraint, a number of desiderata can be considered for post-processing. Ideally in correcting a black-box, we would want the approach to have (flexibility) in satisfying substantially different fairness criteria, (proximity) of the learnt\n36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022).\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"fjefERgfyf4cbSCei0KA2YUkWLw=\">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</latexit>x\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"fjefERgfyf4cbSCei0KA2YUkWLw=\">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</latexit>x\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"fjefERgfyf4cbSCei0KA2YUkWLw=\">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</latexit>x <latexit sha1_base64=\"fRWFi/o7qqg8UEggtdmkGME2QqM=\">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</latexit>\n⌘u(x) Accuracy CVaR EOO * *\nBlack-box Black-box + Fair wrapper Accuracy (Thm. 2) CVaR (Thm. 1) EOO (Thm. 5)\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"r4gbiuzhr06S0OgXgSW0Gi6QwMg=\">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</latexit> ↵ 0 ⌘u\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"GwAn1Dbruwln7z4fjZKsuyyuT7M=\">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</latexit> ↵ ⌘u <latexit sha1_base64=\"QmKW6Ut+d33mP63ww1vbtDlk0og=\">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</latexit>\n⌘f(x)\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"+snP8WJzgFPoLq0ygdOL/i1w6bE=\">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</latexit>\n⌘0f(x)\n? ?\n?\nFigure 1: Summary of using different ↵-correction wrappers to obtain different fairness criteria guarantees. See Sections 5 and 6 for full details on guarantees.\n⌘f to the original ⌘u, and meaningful (composability) properties if, e.g., ⌘f was later treated as a new black-box to be post-processed. To facilitate a specific style of correction, we may also want the representation of the correction to facilitate (explainability) for auditing the post-processing procedure and bounds on the increased model (complexity) of the final classifier ⌘f. In training the correction, algorithmically we would also want guarantees for (convergence). Our contribution satisfies the aforementioned desiderata in its correction, representation, and algorithmic guarantees. By leveraging recent theory in improper loss functions, we utilize a universal correction of black-box posteriors defined by the ↵-loss. This allows for a flexible correction which yields convenient divergence bounds between ⌘f and ⌘u, a convenient form for the Rademacher complexity of the class of ⌘f, and a simple composability property. Representation-wise, the corrections we learn are easy-to-interpret tree-shaped functions that we define as ↵-trees. Algorithmically speaking, we provide two formal boosting algorithms to learn ↵-trees building upon seminal results [15]. We demonstrate our algorithm for conditional value-at-risk (CVAR) [32], equality of opportunity (EOO), and statistical parity; as depicted in Fig. 1. Experiments are provided against five baselines on readily available datasets. All proofs and more experiments are in an Appendix denoted as SI.",
  "2 Related Work": "Post-processing models to achieve fairness is one of three different categories in tackling the ML + fairness challenge [35, Section 6.2]. Although other notions exist, e.g. individual fairness [12], we limit our analysis to group fairness, which concerns itself with ensuring that statistics of subpopulations are similar. We further segment this cluster into three subsets: (I) approaches learning a new model with two constraints: being close to the pretrained model and being fair [16, 22, 31, 34]; (II) approaches biasing the output of the pretrained model at classification time, modifying observations for fairer outcomes [1, 14, 18, 21, 33, 34]; and (III) techniques consisting of exploiting sets of models to achieve fairness [11]. None of these approaches formulates substantial guarantees on all of the desiderata in the introduction. Some bring contributions with the (flexibility) of being applicable to more than two fairness notions [7, 31, 11, 34]. Two of which provide the convenience of analytic conditions on new fairness notions to fit in the approach [31, 11]. However, for all of them, the algorithmic price-tag is unclear [7, 11] or heavily depends on convex optimization routines [31]. [1, 34] provide strong guarantees regarding (proximity), w.r.t. consistency and generalization. To our knowledge, our approach of correcting prediction unfairness through improper losses [29] is new.",
  "3 Setting and Motivating Example": "Let X be a domain of observations, Y .= { 1, 1} be labels and S is a sensitive attribute in X. We assume that the modalities of S induce a partition of X. We further let D denote the joint measure over X⇥ Y, M denote the marginal measure over X, and ⇡ .= P[Y = 1] being the prior. We denote conditioning of M through a subscript, e.g., Ms for s 2 S denotes M conditioned on a sensitive attribute subgroup S = s. We leave the -algebra to be implicit (which is assumed to be the same everywhere). As is often assumed in ML, sampling is i.i.d.; we make no notational distinction between empirical and true measures to simplify exposition – most of our results apply for both.\nConsider the task of learning a function ⌘ 2 [0, 1]X to estimate the true posterior ⌘?(x) = P[Y = 1|X = x] in binary classification. For instance, we may want to predict the probability of hiring an applicant for a company. Given the pointwise loss L(⌘(X), ⌘?(X)), which determines the loss of a\nAge\n0.49\n-0.35 2.50 0.5 1.0 ⌘u\n0.0\n0.5\n1.0\n⌘ f\nz 2 [ 1, 1]0.0\n0.5\n1.0\n⌘\n⌘ (x) Ground Truth ⌘u(x): Age 25 ⌘f(x): Age 25\n⌘u(x): Age < 25 z < 0 ⌘f(x): Age < 25 z < 0\n⌘u(x): Age < 25 z 0 ⌘f(x): Age < 25 z 0\nz 2 [ 1, 1]0.0\n0.5\n1.0\n⌘\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"+lGUqvU+BjM0N7xJ48pQb/EgZCU=\">AAACK3icbVDLSsNAFJ2pr1pfrS7dDBbBVUlE1GXRjcsK9oFpKJPpTTt0kgkzE7GEfoZb/QK/xpXi1v8wabMwrQcGDufcyz1zvEhwbSzrE5fW1jc2t8rblZ3dvf2Dau2wo2WsGLSZFFL1PKpB8BDahhsBvUgBDTwBXW9ym/ndJ1Cay/DBTCNwAzoKuc8ZNank9ANqxoyK5HE2qNathjUHWSV2TuooR2tQw5X+ULI4gNAwQbV2bCsybkKV4UzArNKPNUSUTegInJSGNADtJvPMM3KaKkPiS5W+0JC5+ncjoYHW08BLJ7OMetnLxP88Jzb+tZvwMIoNhGxxyI8FMZJkBZAhV8CMmKaEMsXTrISNqaLMpDUVrsTRSAFMCh9Jnhf5C5oXZO3Zy12tks55w75s2PcX9eZN3mMZHaMTdIZsdIWa6A61UBsxJNELekVv+B1/4C/8vRgt4XznCBWAf34BdEaogQ==</latexit>Z <latexit sha1_base64=\"8IqhuSlS+BgZN36Ade1j2wGcMjM=\">AAACJnicbVDLSgNBEJz1GeMr0aOXwSB4Crsi6jHoxWME84BkCbOT3mTMzOw6MyuGJf/gVb/Ar/Em4s1PcZLswU0saCiquunuCmLOtHHdb2dldW19Y7OwVdze2d3bL5UPmjpKFIUGjXik2gHRwJmEhmGGQztWQETAoRWMbqZ+6wmUZpG8N+MYfEEGkoWMEmOlZncAj9jtlSpu1Z0BLxMvIxWUod4rO8VuP6KJAGkoJ1p3PDc2fkqUYZTDpNhNNMSEjsgAOpZKIkD76ezcCT6xSh+HkbIlDZ6pfydSIrQei8B2CmKGetGbiv95ncSEV37KZJwYkHS+KEw4NhGe/o77TAE1fGwJoYrZWzEdEkWosQnltiTxQAGMco+kz/P7c1ogJjY9bzGrZdI8q3oXVe/uvFK7znIsoCN0jE6Rhy5RDd2iOmogih7QC3pFb8678+F8Ol/z1hUnmzlEOTg/vxtCpbA=</latexit> 0 <latexit sha1_base64=\"fbVeD4mE/r3tuSc0rWMe0baqL9U=\">AAACI3icbVDLSgNBEJz1GeMr0aOXwSB4Crsi6sFD0IvHiOYByRJmJ73JkJnZZWZWDEs+wat+gV/jTbx48F+cJHtwEwsaiqpuuruCmDNtXPfbWVldW9/YLGwVt3d29/ZL5YOmjhJFoUEjHql2QDRwJqFhmOHQjhUQEXBoBaPbqd96AqVZJB/NOAZfkIFkIaPEWOnhGru9UsWtujPgZeJlpIIy1Htlp9jtRzQRIA3lROuO58bGT4kyjHKYFLuJhpjQERlAx1JJBGg/nd06wSdW6eMwUrakwTP170RKhNZjEdhOQcxQL3pT8T+vk5jwyk+ZjBMDks4XhQnHJsLTx3GfKaCGjy0hVDF7K6ZDogg1Np7cliQeKIBR7pH0eX5/TgvExKbnLWa1TJpnVe+i6t2fV2o3WY4FdISO0Sny0CWqoTtURw1E0QC9oFf05rw7H86n8zVvXXGymUOUg/PzC0gCpDU=</latexit>< 0\n<latexit sha1_base64=\"tyL2iRoQ9SY33Kkeg1G3J34TBHk=\">AAACJHicbVDLSsNAFJ2pr1pfrS7dDBbBVUmKr4WLohuXFewD2lAm05t26EwSZiZiCf0Ft/oFfo07ceHGbzFpszCtBy4czrmXe+9xQ8G1saxvXFhb39jcKm6Xdnb39g/KlcO2DiLFoMUCEaiuSzUI7kPLcCOgGyqg0hXQcSd3qd95AqV54D+aaQiOpCOfe5xRk0o3pH4xKFetmjUHWSV2RqooQ3NQwaX+MGCRBN8wQbXu2VZonJgqw5mAWakfaQgpm9AR9BLqUwnaiefHzshpogyJF6ikfEPm6t+JmEqtp9JNOiU1Y73speJ/Xi8y3rUTcz+MDPhssciLBDEBST8nQ66AGTFNCGWKJ7cSNqaKMpPkk9sShSMFMMk9Ej8v7s9prpwl6dnLWa2Sdr1mX9bsh/Nq4zbLsYiO0Qk6Qza6Qg10j5qohRgaoxf0it7wO/7An/hr0VrA2cwRygH//ALNTKR2</latexit> < 25 <latexit sha1_base64=\"dTmy5wDYork7Pigobv5cJn/IZtE=\">AAACJ3icbVDLTsJAFJ3iC/EFunQzkZi4Ii3xtSS6cYmJPBJoyHS4LRNm2jozNZKGj3CrX+DXuDO69E8coAsLnuQmJ+fcm3vv8WLOlLbtb6uwtr6xuVXcLu3s7u0flCuHbRUlkkKLRjySXY8o4CyElmaaQzeWQITHoeONb2d+5wmkYlH4oCcxuIIEIfMZJdpInX4Aj7h+MShX7Zo9B14lTkaqKENzULFK/WFEEwGhppwo1XPsWLspkZpRDtNSP1EQEzomAfQMDYkA5abze6f41ChD7EfSVKjxXP07kRKh1ER4plMQPVLL3kz8z+sl2r92UxbGiYaQLhb5Ccc6wrPn8ZBJoJpPDCFUMnMrpiMiCdUmotyWJA4kwDj3SPq8uD+neWJq0nOWs1ol7XrNuaw59+fVxk2WYxEdoxN0hhx0hRroDjVRC1E0Ri/oFb1Z79aH9Wl9LVoLVjZzhHKwfn4Boe+l8Q==</latexit> 25\nsingle example, the (total) risk is defined as\nL(⌘; M, ⌘?) .= EX⇠M [L(⌘(X), ⌘?(X))] (1)\n(with slight abuse of notation). A low risk corresponds to good classification performance. In this paper, we consider the risk determined by the log-loss:\nL(⌘; M, ⌘?) .= E X⇠M [⌘?(X) · log ⌘(X) + (1 ⌘?(X)) · log(1 ⌘(X))] . (2)\nWe now consider a simple fairness problem, centered around the example of Fig. 2. Suppose that we are given a black-box ⌘u which predicts hiring probabilities without considering fairness. Although the minimized total risk of (1) might be small, there can be discrepancies in the performance between different subgroups. Instead of considering the total risk, the predictive performance of specific subgroups can be examined through the subgroup risk L(⌘u; Ms, ⌘?), for a subgroup s 2 S. For instance, we might want to examine the discrepancy of subgroup risks among the age of applications. A natural fairness task would be to improve the worst performing subgroup, say sw 2 S. To post-process unfairness, we want to learn a function ↵ : X! R which “wraps” ⌘u and lowers the worst subgroup risk. We propose the following “wrapping”, inspired by improper loss functions [29]\n⌘f(x) . =\n⌘u(x)↵(x)\n⌘u(x)↵(x) + (1 ⌘u(x))↵(x) 2 [0, 1]. (3)\nNotice when ↵(x) = 1 the resulting posterior is the original ⌘u(x). Importantly, (3) is flexible enough to transform any input black-box ⌘u to any needed ⌘f. Looking at Fig. 2 (left and middle), intuitively by setting different ↵(x) values, (3) “sharpens” (yellow, ↵ > 1), “dampens” (blue, 0 < ↵ < 1), or “polarity reverses” (red, ↵ < 0) the original posterior ⌘u. To improve fairness, we need a combination of these corrections to accommodate different subsets of the input domain (thus learning ↵(.) as a function). We specifically learn ↵(.) to be a tree structure, which allows an interpretable correction alongside other formal properties (Section 5). Definition 1. An ↵-tree is a rooted, directed binary tree, with internal nodes labeled with observation variables. Outgoing arcs are labeled with tests over the nodes’ variable. Leaves are real valued. ⇤(⌥) is the leafset of ↵-tree ⌥. An ↵-tree induces a correction over posteriors as per (3) with ↵ = ⌥.\nOur fairness problem is now learning an ↵-tree ⌘ which provides a corresponding correction that improves the worst subgroup risk, i.e., L(⌘u; Msw , ⌘?) > L(⌘f; Msw , ⌘?). The entirety of Fig. 2 presents such a process. In this hiring task example, the ground truth hiring rate is constant w.r.t. the inputs, ⌘?(x) = 0.7. Despite this, the black-box ⌘u(.) unfairly depends on the age of applicants and incorrectly depends on a noise feature Z. By choosing ↵(x) as per Fig. 2 (left), the correction changes ⌘u to be closer to ⌘?, improving the risk of the worst subgroup (alongside the other subgroup in this example): the worse-case loss improves from 1.09 to 0.62.\nAlthough the fairness criteria discussed might be considered simple, the procedure of iteratively minimizing the worse performing subgroup can be used to improve the conditional value-at-risk (lower is better) fairness criteria [32]:\nCVAR (⌘f) . = ES[L(⌘f; MS, ⌘?) | L(⌘f; MS, ⌘?) L ], (4)\nAlgorithm 1 TOPDOWN (Mt, ⌘t, ⌥0, B) Input mixture Mt, posterior ⌘t, ↵-tree ⌥0, B 2 R+⇤; Step 1: ⌥ ⌥0; Step 2 : while stopping condition not met do\nStep 2.1 : pick leaf ? 2 ⇤(⌥); // i.e. heaviest leaf Step 2.2 : h? arg minh2H H(⌥( ?, h); Mt, ⌘t); Step 2.3 : ⌥ ⌥( ?, h?); // split using h? at ?\nStep 3 : label leaves 8 2 ⇤(⌥):\n⌥( ) . = ◆̃\n✓ 1 + e(M , ⌘t)\n2\n◆ , // ↵-value (5)\nOutput ⌥;\nwhere L is the risk value for the quantile among subgroups, which is user-defined. The difference is that CVAR not only considers the worse case subgroup, but all subgroups above the L risk value (let these subgroups be S ). One can simply iteratively improve all s 2 S , as done in the example of Fig. 2. Indeed, in the example, CVAR with = 0.9 improves from 1.09 to 0.62 (which is equivalent to worse-case loss in this case).",
  "4 Growing Alpha-Trees": "We now introduce the procedure to grow an ↵-tree via a boosting algorithm TOPDOWN, Algorithm 1. TOPDOWN can be thought of as a generalization of the standard decision tree induction used for classification [15]. We first introduce relevant concepts from decision tree induction to explain TOPDOWN. We contextualize TOPDOWN through its application in improving the CVAR criteria.\nWe first introduce a technical assumption for the black-box ⌘u to be post-processed: Assumption 1. The black-box prediction is bounded away from the extremes: 9B > 0 such that\nIm(⌘u) ✓ I . = ⇥ (1 + exp(B)) 1 , (1 + exp( B)) 1 ⇤ (a.s.). (6)\nCompliance with Assumption 1 can be done by clipping the black-box’s output with a user-fixed B or making sure it is calibrated and then finding B.\nEntropy-based updates for fairness: An important component in standard decision tree induction is the edge function, which measures the label purity (proportion of positive examples) of a decision tree node. We introduce a generalization which considers the alignment purity of a black-box. Definition 2. Let ◆(u) .= log(u/(1 u)) the logit of u 2 (0, 1) and ◆̃(u) .= ◆(u)/B a normalization which satisfies ◆̃(I) = [ 1, 1]. The alignment edge of Mt and ⌘t is defined as,\ne(Mt, ⌘t) . = E(X,Y)⇠Dt [Y◆̃(⌘u(X))] , (7)\nwhere Dt is the joint measure induced by Mt and ⌘t. With Assumption 1, e(Mt, ⌘t) 2 [ 1, 1].\nBy replacing the normalized logit ◆̃ with a constant 1, (7) reduces to a measure of label purity used in regular classification. In our case, (7) measures how well the black-box ⌘u “aligns” with the true labels Y through the logit. This also takes into account the “confidence” of the black-box’s predictions: for a high alignment purity, predictions not only need be correct but also to be highly confident (⌘u close to the endpoints of I). Similar to how the splits of a decision tree classifier are determined by the entropy of a tree’s label purity, an ↵-tree splits based on its alignment entropy. Definition 3. Given an ↵-tree ⌥ with leafset ⇤, when Assumption 1 is satisfied, the entropy of ⌥ is:\nH(⌥; Mt, ⌘t) . = E ⇠M⇤(⌥) [H1( ; Mt, ⌘t)] , (8)\nwhere H(q) .= q log(q) (1 q) log(1 q), H1( ; Mt, ⌘t) . = H((1 + e(M , ⌘t))/2), M is Mt conditioned to leaf 2 ⇤(⌥), and M⇤(⌥) is a measure induced on ⇤(⌥) by leaf weights on Mt. Theorem 1. For any Mt, ⌘t, let ⌥’s leaves follow (5). Then L(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t)  H(⌥; Mt, ⌘t).\nAlgorithm 1 can now be explained by repeatedly leveraging Theorem 1. Suppose that we have a hypothesis set of possible splits H to grow our ↵-tree. Denote ⌥( , h) as the ↵-tree ⌥ split at leaf\n2 ⇤(⌥) using test h. The inner loop within Step 2 is the process of finding the best possible leaf splits which helps to minimize the ↵-tree’s entropy and to reduce the risk as per Theorem 1. The ↵-values of (5) calculated in step 3 are those used to ensure Theorem 1 holds. By setting Mt Msw and ⌘t ⌘?, Algorithm 1 improves CVAR by iteratively improving the ↵-tree’s worst subgroup entropy H(⌥; Msw , ⌘?), which as a surrogate improves the worst subgroup risk L(⌘u; Msw , ⌘?). To accommodate for different quantiles values for CVAR, TOPDOWN can be run repeatedly (replacing the initial input tree ⌥0) to progressively improve all s 2 S . Hence, to reduce CVAR, we basically\nuse TOPDOWN with Mt Ms (s 2 S ) and ⌘t ⌘?. (CVAR)\nAs alluded to by the notation used to instantiate TOPDOWN, the inputs of the algorithm can be instantiated to optimize for fairness criteria beyond CVAR. This is discussed in Section 6. In the usual ML setting, Mt, ⌘t can be estimated from a training sample (see Section 7).\nInitialization: In the procedure of improving CVAR, the worst subgroups can be iteratively improved. However, we also need to make sure that improvement of a subgroup does not adversely affect another subgroup (which could potentially harm CVAR instead). As such, we introduce an additional structure to the ↵-tree ⌥ by tweaking the initial tree structure ⌥0 used in TOPDOWN. Since the fairness attribute S partitions the dataset, a convenient choice of initializing the ↵-tree is to split by the subgroup modalities, as depicted in Fig. 3. As such, we grow separate sub-↵-trees for each of the sensitive modalities. For CVAR, this allows the subgroup risk of individual subgroups to be tweaked without adversely affecting other subgroups.",
  "5 Formal Properties": "We move to the formal properties of our approach. We first detail the background of improper loss functions which motivates our correction given in Section 3. We then present the formal properties of this correction. The useful properties of having ↵(.) represented by a tree structure is then discussed. Finally, we present a convergence analysis of Algorithm 1 and an alternative boosting scheme.\nCan ⌘f as per (3) correct (any) potential unfairness? Yes. In short, this comes from recent theory in improper loss functions for class probability estimation (CPE) [29]. We are interested in the pointwise minimizer (eventually set-valued) of:\nt`(⌘) . = arg inf\nu2[0,1] L(u, ⌘). (9)\nDubbed as the Bayes tilted estimate of a loss ` [29], t`(⌘) is the set of optimal “responses” given a ground truth (pointwise) posterior ⌘. Common loss functions are proper: the ground truth value ⌘ 2 t`(⌘) is an optimal response. However, in the case where ⌘ cannot be trusted (for instance when it is unfair), we may not want to default to imitating ⌘. In addition we also want to make sure that the Bayes tilted estimate can fit to any desired (in our context, fair) target. The so-called ↵-loss `↵, which generalizes the (proper) log-loss, is a good candidate parameterized by a variable ↵. Its Bayes tilted estimate is the pointwise version of (3), for ↵ 62 {0,1} and ⌘ 6= 1/2:\nt`↵(⌘) = {⌘↵/(⌘↵ + (1 ⌘)↵)} . (10) Importantly for ↵-losses, for any ⌘ 62 {0, 1/2, 1} and any ⌘0 2 (0, 1), there exists ↵ 2 R in (10) such that t`↵(⌘) = {⌘0}. This property, called twist-properness [29], allows for any pointwise correction. By extending ↵ to a function (of x 2 X, as per (3)), twist-properness ensures that given an initial unfair posterior an appropriately learned ↵(.) can correct any unfairness. This allows for (flexible) fairness post-processing – different ↵ functions can be learned for different criteria (i.e., Fig. 1).\nWhy use the Log-Loss? As per Section 3, we minimize the log-loss. We choose the log-loss for two reasons: ¨ it is strictly proper and so minimizing L(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t) (i.e., via TOPDOWN) “pushes” ⌘f towards target ⌘t; and ≠ it is the ↵-loss for ↵ = 1, so we are guaranteed that for the minimizer ⌘f ! ⌘u () ↵! 1. With alternative (i.e. non-strictly proper) loss, we might have only “)”. Do we have guarantees on some proximity of ⌘f with respect to ⌘u? Yes, with light assumptions. We examine the (proximity) of black-box and post-processed posteriors with the KL divergence [2]:\nKL(⌘u, ⌘f; M) . = E(X,Y)⇠Du\n⇥ log\ndDu((X, Y)) dDf((X, Y))\n⇤ , (11)\nwhere Du, Df are the product measures defined from M and their respective posteriors. To bound the proximity (11), we present setting (S1).\n(S1) Assumption 1 holds for some 0 < B  3 and function ↵ satisfies |↵(x) 1|  1/B (a.s.).\nThis setting lead to the following data independent proximity bound. Theorem 2. For any M, (S1) implies KL(⌘u, ⌘f; M)  ⇡2/(6 · (2 + exp(B) + exp( B))).\nAs an example, fix B = 3 for (S1). In this case, we want ↵(.) 2 [2/3, 4/3] (a.s.) which is a reasonable sized interval centered at 1. The clamped black-box posterior’s interval is approximately [0.04, 0.96], which is quite flexible and the distortion is upperbounded as KL(⌘u, ⌘f; M)  7.5E 2. Is the composition of transformations meaningful? Yes. The analytical form in (3) brings the following easy-to-check (composability) property. Lemma 1. The composition of any two wrapping transformations ⌘u ↵7! ⌘f ↵ 0 7! ⌘0f following (3) is equivalent to the single transformation ⌘u ↵·↵ 0 7! ⌘0f .\nThis gives an invertibility condition – wrapping ⌘f with ↵0 = 1/↵ recovers the original black-box ⌘u.\nGiven some capacity parameter for ⌘u, can we easily compute that of ⌘f? Yes, e.g., for decision trees. Such a question is particularly relevant for generalization. As we are using the log-loss (2), a relevant capacity notion to assess the uniform convergence of risk minimization for the whole wrapped model is the Rademacher (complexity) [3]. We examine the following set of functions:\nHf . = {⌘f : ⌘f(x) given by (3) with ↵, ⌘u; 8(↵, ⌘u)} , (12)\nwhere we assume known the set of functions from which ⌘u was trained. We now assume we have a m-training sample S .= {(xi, yi) ⇠ D}mi=1. The empirical Rademacher complexity of a set of functions H from X to R, RS(H) . = E suph2H Ei[ ih(xi)] (sampling uniform with i 2 { 1, 1}), is a capacity parameter that yields efficient control of uniform convergence when the loss used is Lipschitz [3, Theorem 7], which is the case of the log-loss. To see how the ↵-tree affects the Rademacher complexity of classification using ⌘f instead of ⌘u, suppose real-valued prediction based on ⌘u is achieved via logit mapping, ◆ ⌘u (12). Such mappings are common for decision trees [26]. Lemma 2. Suppose {⌘u} is the set of decision trees of depth  d and denote RS(DT(d)) the empirical Rademacher complexity of decision trees of depth  d [3] and d0 the maximum depth allowed for ↵-trees. Then we have for Hf in (12): RS(Hf)  RS(DT(d + d0)).\nThe proof is straightforward once we remark that elements in Hf can be represented as decision trees, where we plug at each leaf of ⌘u a copy of the ↵-tree ⌥.\nDoes Algorithm 1 have any convergence properties? Yes, it is a boosting algorithm. Following a similar blueprint to classical decision tree induction, it comes with no surprise that TOPDOWN can achieve boosting compliant convergence. To show that TOPDOWN is a boosting algorithm, we need a Weak Hypothesis Assumption (WHA), which postulates informally that each chosen split brings a small edge over random splits for a tailored distribution. Definition 4. Let 2 ⇤(⌥) and Dt be the product measure on X ⇥ Y conditioned on . The balanced product measure D0t at leaf is defined as (z . = (x, y) for short):\nD 0 t (z) . = 1 e(M , ⌘t) · y◆̃(⌘u(x)) 1 e(M , ⌘t)2 · Dt (z). (13)\nWe check that R\ndD 0 t = 1 because of Def. 2. Our balanced distribution is named after [15]’s: ours\nindeed generalizes theirs. The key difference comes from the change in setting, where we consider the alignment purity of a leaf and not its label purity. The “fairness-free case” where ◆̃(.) is replaced by constant 1 yields the original balanced distribution [15]. We now state our WHA. Assumption 2. Let h : X! Y be the function splitting leaf . For > 0, then h -witnesses the Weak Hypothesis Assumption (WHA) at iff\n(i) E (X,Y)⇠D0t [Y◆̃(⌘u(X)) · h(X)] ; (ii) e(M , ⌘t) · E(X,Y)⇠Dt\n⇥ (1 ◆̃2(⌘u(X))) · h(X) ⇤  0.\nIntuitively, (i) gives a condition on the split h’s correlation with unfair posterior ⌘u agreement with labels and (ii) does the same for the confidence of ⌘u predictions. Similarly to the balanced\ndistribution, in the fairness-free case where we only care about the label purity of splits, the WHA simplified to that of [15]’s – i.e., only (i) matters. A further discussion on our balanced distribution and WHA is in the SI, Section III. We now state TOPDOWN’s boosting compliant (convergence). Theorem 3. Suppose (a) Assumption 1 holds, (b) we pick the heaviest leaf to split at each iteration in Step 2.1 of TOPDOWN and (c) 9 > 0 such that each split h? (Step 2.2) in ⌥ -witnesses the WHA. Then there exists a constant c > 0 such that 8\" > 0, if the number of leaves of ⌥ satisfies |⇤(⌥)| (1/\")c log( 1 \" )/ 2 , then ⌘f crafted from (3) using TOPDOWN’s ⌥ achieves L(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t)  \".\nAre there alternative ways of growing ↵-trees? Yes. Let us call conservative the scoring scheme in (5). There is an alternative scoring scheme, which can lead to substantially larger corrections in absolute values, hence the naming, and yields better entropic bounds for the ↵-tree. Definition 5. For any mixture Mt and posteriors ⌘u, ⌘t, let e+(Mt, ⌘t) and e (Mt, ⌘t) be defined by\ne±(Mt, ⌘t) . = E(X,Y)⇠Dt [max{0, ±Y◆̃(⌘u(X))}] . (14)\nThe audacious scoring schemes at the leaves of the ↵-tree replaces (5) in Step 3 by:\n⌥( ) . = ◆̃\n✓ e+(M , ⌘t)\ne+(M , ⌘t) + e (M , ⌘t)\n◆ , 8 2 ⇤(⌥).\nTheorem 4. Suppose Assumption 1 holds and let H2(q) . = H(q)/ log 2 (2 [0, 1]), H being defined in Definition 3. For any leaf 2 ⇤(⌥), denote for short:\nH2( ; Mt, ⌘t) . = log(2) · ✓ 1 + (e+ + e ) · ✓ H2 ✓ e+\ne+ + e\n◆ 1 ◆◆ ,\nwhere let eb . = eb(M , ⌘t), 8b 2 {+, }. Using audacious scoring, we get instead of Theorem 1:\nL(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t)  E ⇠M⇤(⌥) [H2( ; Mt, ⌘t)] . (15)\nWhile upperbounds in Theorem 1 and Theorem 4 may look incomparable, it takes a simple argument to show that (15) is never worse and can be much tighter. Lemma 3. 8↵-tree ⌥, E ⇠M⇤(⌥) [H2( ; Mt, ⌘t)]  H(⌥; Mt, ⌘t).\nIt thus comes at no surprise that using the audacious scoring also results in a boosting result for TOPDOWN guaranteeing the same rates as in Theorem 3. It also takes a simple picture to show that the per-leaf slack in Lemma 3 can be substantial, a slack which can be represented using a simple picture, see Figure 4 (left), following from the use of Jensen’s inequality in the Lemma’s proof.\nAs audacious scoring is better boosting-wise, is conservative scoring useful? Yes. If we only cared about accuracy, we would barely have any reason to use the conservative correction. Even thinking about generalization, the Rademacher complexity of decision trees is a function of their depth so faster the convergence, the better [3, Section 4.1]. Adding fairness substantially changes the picture: some constraints, like equality of opportunity (Section 6) can antagonize accuracy to some extent. In such a case, using the conservative correction can keep posteriors ⌘u and ⌘t close enough (Theorem 2) so that fairness can be achieved without substantial sacrifice on accuracy.",
  "6 Fairness and Societal Considerations": "In this section, we present the fairness guarantees TOPDOWN can achieve. In particular, we provide a discussion about how Theorem 3 can guarantee minimization of the CVAR criteria. Furthermore, we provide alternative inputs to TOPDOWN which allows for EOO to be targeted as a fairness criteria. In the SI Section II, we further present a treatment of statistical parity. Lastly, we discuss how using ↵-trees provides explainable corrections and how utilization of the sensitive attribute (as per Fig. 3) can be circumvented.\nGuarantees on CVaR: As discussed in previous sections, one way to improve the CVAR fairness criteria (as per (4)) is to focus optimization on the worst treated subgroups. Given a specified quantile group and the set of worse subgroups S , we can repeat (CVAR) until CVAR (⌘f) gets below a threshold or (more specifically) its worst tread group gets a risk below a threshold (i.e., a stopping criterion). Importantly, Theorem 3 provides a guarantee: to ensure CVAR is below \", we simply need to boost for |S| times the tree size bound |⇤(⌥)| given in Theorem 3. Guarantees on EOO: EOO requires to smooth discrimination within an “advantaged” group, modeled by the label Y = 1 [14]. We say that ⌘f achieves \"-equality of opportunity iff a mapping hf of ⌘f to Y (e.g. using the sign of its logit ◆) satisfies\nmax s2S P X⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1] min s2S P X⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1]  \", (16)\nwhere Ps is the positive observations’ measure conditioned to value S = s for the sensitive attribute. It is clear that EOO can be antagonistic to accuracy: the rate of advantage in the data D may not be equal among the subgroups. As such, unlike CVAR, we do not want to target the Bayes posterior ⌘t 6 ⌘? for EOO. Instead, we target a skewed posterior which aims to improve the least advantaged subgroup, i.e., increasing s 2 arg mins2S PX⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1]. Our strategy consists of picking a target posterior which skews part of the original ⌘? to be more advantaged, thus reducing the LHS of (16) until (16) is satisfied1. For this, we create a (p, )-pushup of ⌘?, defined in SI Appendix I.\nFig. 4 (right) presents an example of a pushup map. Notice that the pushup only changes the predicted probability of example which do not have a “confident prediction” (the interval [⌘(p), 1/2 + ]). Intuitively, p controls how many examples are corrected and controls how much the correction “pushes up” advantage, further discussion in SI Appendix I. We then run TOPDOWN using as mixture the positive measure conditioned to S = s and p .= PX⇠Ps⇤ [hf(X) = 1] + \"/(K 1), . = K\"/(K 1), with K > 1 user-fixed. Thus, we do\nUse TOPDOWN with Mt Ps and ⌘t ⌘?p, . (EOO)\nTheorem 5. If TOPDOWN is run until L(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t)  (\"4/2) + EX⇠Mt [H(⌘t(X))], then after the run we observe PX⇠Ps? [hf(X) = 1] PX⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1]  \".\nIn the full context of EOO, in the optimization we should not wait to get the bound on L(⌘f; Mt, ⌘t). Rather, we should make sure (a) we update arg mins2S PX⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1] (and thus s ) after each split in the ↵-tree and (b) we keep arg maxs2S PX⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1] as is, to prevent switching targets and eventually composing pushup transformations for the same S = s , which would not necessarily comply with our theory. Notably, the guarantee presented in Theorem 5 depends on the mapping hf and not the direct posterior ⌘f, as typically considered [14]. When taking a threshold (sign of the logit), hf can be interpreted as forcing the original posterior to be extreme values of 0 or 1.\nUnlike the CVAR case, EOO (as per (17), SI) requires an explicit approximation of ⌘?. In practice, we find that taking a simple approximation of ⌘? still can yield fairness gains. However, if one does not want to make such an approximation, one can adapt the statistical parity approach (detailed in SI, Section II). Similarly, if wants to consider the typical EOO definitions depending on posterior values, the target measure can be replaced (i.e., swapping measure Mt with the positive examples P).\nExplainability: ↵-trees using the initialization proposed in Section 4 (and Fig. 3) allows for (explainability) properties similar to that of decision tree classifiers. Fixing a sensitive attribute\n1If we instead reduce argmaxs2S PX⇠Ps [hf(X) = 1] we get a symmetric strategy. The application informs which to use: if positive class implies money spending (e.g. loan prediction), then our strategy implies spending more money; while the latter aims to reduce money lent to achieve fairness.\nS = s, the corresponding sub-↵-tree ⌥s can be examined to scrutinize the correction done for the corresponding subgroup. If the splits of the ↵-tree are simple, similarly to standard decision tree classifiers, corresponding partitions of the input domain can be examined. Furthermore, the type of corrections can also be examined, as discussed in Section 3; where corrections can be classified as “sharpening”, “dampening”, or “polarity flipping” depending on the leaves’ ↵-values.\nUsage of sensitive attribute: Post-processing methods have been flagged in the context of fair classification for the fact that they require explicit access to the sensitive feature at classification time [35, § 6.2.3]. Our basic approach to the induction of ↵-trees falls in this category (Fig. 3), but there is a simple way to mask the use of the sensitive attribute and the polarity of disparate treatment it induces: it consists in first inducing a decision tree to predict the sensitive feature based on the other features and use this decision tree as an alternative initialization to naively splitting on subgroups. We thus also redefine sensitive groups based on this decision tree – thus alleviating the need to use the sensitive attribute in the ↵-tree. The use of proxy sensitive attributes in a similar manner has seen ample use in a various domain such as health care [6, 5] and finance [13]. We however note that its application in post-process and ↵-trees may not be appropriate across all domains [8].",
  "7 Experiments": "To evaluate TOPDOWN2, we consider three datasets presenting a range of different size / feature types, Bank and German Credit (preprocessed by AIF360 [4]) and the American Community Survey (ACS) dataset preprocessed by Folktables3 [9]. The SI (pg 32) presents all results at length (including considerations on proxy sensitive attributes, distribution shift, and interpretability), along with the different black-boxes considered (random forests and neural nets). We concentrate in the Section on the ACS dataset for income prediction in the state of CA and evaluate TOPDOWN’s application to various fairness criteria (as per Section 6 and SI pg 15) with Random Forests (RF). For these experiments, we consider age as a binary sensitive attribute with a bin split at 25 (a trinary modality is deferred to the SI). For the black-box, we consider a clipped (Assumption 1 with B = 1) random forest (RF) from scikit-learn calibrated using Platt’s method [23]. The RF consists of an ensemble of 50 decision trees with a maximum depth of 4 and a random selection of 10% of the training samples per decision tree. Data is split into 3 subsets for black-box training, post-processing training, and testing; consisting of 40:40:20 splits in 5 fold cross validation. For EOO, we utilize an out-of-the-box Gaussian Naive Bayes classifier from scikit-learn to approximate ⌘?.\nMultiple fairness criteria We evaluate TOPDOWN for CVAR, equality of opportunity EOO, and statistical parity SP. The complete treatment of SP is pushed to SI (Sections II, XII). SP aims to make subgroup’s expected posteriors similar and is popular in a various post-processing methods [31, 1]. The definition can be found in SI (pg 15) along with the strategy used in TOPDOWN. Conservative and audacious updates rules are also tested. For each of these TOPDOWN configurations, we boost for 32 iterations. The initial ↵-tree is initialized as in Fig. 3.\nWe compare against 5 baseline approaches. For CVAR we consider the in-processing approach (INCVAR) presented in [32]. For EOO, we consider a derived predictor (DEREOO) [14]. Our\n2Implementation public at: https://github.com/alexandersoen/alpha-tree-fair-wrappers 3Public at: https://github.com/zykls/folktables\nSP baselines include an optimized score transformation approach (OST) [31]; a derived predictor modified for SP (DERSP) [14]; and a randomized threshold optimizer approach (RTO) [1]. We denote the clipped black-box as BBOX. The experiments for CVAR and EOO are summarized in Fig. 5; the full plot with SP is presented at SI Fig. 10. For clarity we only plot the baselines and wrappers which are directly associated to each fairness criteria. We also plot the posterior mean difference between the data and debiased posteriors MD (0/1 loss) to examine the effects on accuracy.\nFor CVAR, both conservative and audacious approaches decreases CVAR, which results in better CVAR values than both the original BBOX and in-processing baseline INCVAR – which is good news since INCVAR directly optimizes CVAR. We note that there are cases in which the in-processing approach is better than ours (trinary sensitive attributes in SI), but this is expected given INCVAR’s optimization goal. Interestingly, the audacious update is superior in both CVAR and MD than the conservative update. This is also consistent for trinary sensitive attributes. Thus, the audacious update is desirable when optimizing CVAR. Another observation is that only one sensitive attribute subgroup’s ↵-tree is initialized (only one ‘⇥’). This indicates that after 32 iterations the worse case subgroup does not change in the binary case.\nFor EOO, there is a huge difference between conservative and audacious updates as the former gets to the most fair outcomes of all baselines. Even if we used early stopping or pruning of the ↵-tree (taking an earlier iterations) the audacious update would fail at producing outcomes as fair as its conservative counterpart. Furthermore, the audacious update comes with a significant degradation of accuracy MD. Furthermore, by looking at the iterations in which subgroup ↵-trees are initialized, the audacious update causes large (primarily bad) jumps in performance. This rejoins our remark on the interest of having a conservative update in Section 5. When compared to DEREOO, we find that the conservative TOPDOWN approach produces lower EOO. However, DEREOO tend to have better accuracy scores in MD. These observations are consistent with the trinary sensitive attribute (SI).\nFor SP, we can observe fairness results that can be on par with contenders for the conservative update, but observe a substantial degradation of MD. This, we believe, follows from a simple plug-in instantiation of M, ⌘t for the fairness notion in SI Section II, resulting in potentially harsh updates. In SI (pg 15), we discuss an alternative approach using ties with optimal transport.",
  "Reviewer Summary": "Reviewer_3: The paper proposes a post-processing mechanism to wrap black-box predictors such that their predictions become compatible with an ancillary criterion such as fairness. To this end, the authors propose to use so-called \"\nα\n-trees\", an adaptation of decision trees, to learn correction coefficients that are used to change the output probabilities of a black-box model in the desired way. They further introduce adaptations of their algorithm that enable wrappers that satisfy fairness notions such as conditional value at risk, equality of opportunity and statistical parity. To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach, the paper derives a number of bounds, for instance on the divergence of the wrapped predictor from it's black-box source as well as on the amount of unfairness in the adjusted outputs. In addition, empirical results are provided on commonly used datasets.\n\nReviewer_4: This paper proposes a wrapper function in the post-processing to correct the classifier for fairness results. It adopts a previous paper that modifies the improper loss function to make it fair. The proposed boosting algorithm, called\nα\n-tree, corrects for fairness bias for three different notions: Conditional value at risk, Equality of opportunity, and Statistical Parity.\n\nReviewer_5: The paper proposes a way to correct black-box models to fulfill certain notions of group fairness via post-processing. Concretely, the authors suggest to reweigh the posterior distribution of a classifier via a learned decision tree. To this end, the potential bias of a black-box model is cast as a so-called twist. By considering a well-constructed loss, an untwisting function can be learned by minimizing this loss. The authors instantiate this for decision tree learning and three different notions of group fairness (conditional value at risk, equal opportunity, and statistical parity). Two variants of their decision tree learning algorithm, a conservative one, which sacrifices less accuracy to achieve fairness, and an audacious one, which allows larger changes in favor of fairness but potentially costing accuracy, are considered.\nThis is experimentally evaluated on tabular datasets. The proposed approach outperforms different baselines in terms of fairness notion. Interestingly, empirically it appears that the audacious and conservative versions don't exhibit the trade-off discussed above, but depending on the setting either one is strictly better (both in terms of fairness metric and accuracy)."
}