The goal of fair clustering is to find clusters such that the proportion of sensitive attributes (e.g., gender, race, etc.) in each cluster is similar to that of the entire dataset. Various fair clustering algorithms have been proposed that modify standard K-means clustering to satisfy a given fairness constraint. A critical limitation of several existing fair clustering algorithms is that the number of parameters to be learned is proportional to the sample size because the cluster assignment of each datum should be optimized simultaneously with the cluster center, and thus scaling up the algorithms is difficult. In this paper, we propose a new fair clustering algorithm based on a finite mixture model, called Fair Model-based Clustering (FMC). A main advantage of FMC is that the number of learnable parameters is independent of the sample size and thus can be scaled up easily. In particular, mini-batch learning is possible to obtain clusters that are approximately fair. Moreover, FMC can be applied to non-metric data (e.g., categorical data) as long as the likelihood is well-defined. Theoretical and empirical justifications for the superiority of the proposed algorithm are provided.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pareto front lines between Δ and Cost on Adult, Bank, and Credit datasets. See Fig. 5 for the lines between Balance and Cost. See Fig. 6 for the similar results without L2 normalization.
Figure 2: Pareto front lines between Δ and Cost (with standard deviation bands obtained by five random initializations) of FMC-EM (left) and FMC-GD (right) on Adult dataset. See Fig. 4 in Appendix for similar results with respect to Balance and on other datasets.
Figure 3: Pareto front lines between {Δ, Balance} and Cost on Census dataset. See Fig. 7 in Appendix for the similar results without L2 normalization.
Algorithm
Time (std)
VFC
5053.0 (915.5)
SFC
2218.2 (535.1)
FMC (mini-batch, n=0.1N )
253.0 (12.1)
Table 1: Comparison of the average computation time (seconds) with standard deviations (std) over five random initials on Census dataset ( N= 2,458,285).
Method (Nn)
Cost ( ×105 )
Δ
Balance
Time
SS (1%)
11.167
0.005
0.851
53.7%
SS (3%)
10.988
0.004
0.894
65.8%
SS (5%)
10.973
0.003
0.883
71.4%
SS (10%)
10.916
0.003
0.881
77.2%
MB (10%)
10.857
0.002
0.896
100.0%
Table 2: Performances of mini-batch learning (MB) and sub-sample learning (SS) on Census dataset. The computation times of SS are measured by the relative ratio compared to the mini-batch learning with 10%, and the Lagrangian λ for each case is tuned to achieve the lowest Gap value i.e., Δ≈0. See Table 4 in Appendix for the similar results without L2 normalization.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Ait(Θ)={Qfair,i(Θ∣Θ[t];λ)Ait−1(Θ) if i∈It otherwise
Appendix
Algorithm 3 FMC-EM (Expectation-Maximization) for mini-batch learning with sub-sampled Δ In practice, we set (T,R,γ)=(200,10,10−2)
Figure 4: First row: Pareto front lines between Balance and Cost with standard deviation bands of FMC-EM and FMC-GD on Adult dataset. Second row: Pareto front lines between {Δ , Balance } and Cost with standard deviation bands of FMC-EM and FMC-GD on Bank dataset. Third row: Pareto front lines between {Δ , Balance } and Cost with standard deviation bands of FMC-EM and FMC-GD on Credit dataset.
Figure 5: Pareto front lines between Balance and Cost on Adult, Bank, and Credit datasets.
Figure 6: (Top three) Pareto front lines between Δ and Cost on Adult, Bank, and Credit datasets, without L2 normalization. (Bottom three) Pareto front lines between Balance and Cost on Adult, Bank, and Credit datasets, without L2 normalization.
Dataset
Adult
Bank
Algorithm
Balance ↑
Cost ↓
Balance ↑
Cost ↓
Standard clustering
K -means
0.169
9509
0.246
8513
MM-GD
0.174
9629
0.243
8603
MM-EM
0.173
9636
0.242
8600
Fair clustering
FCA
0.494
10680
0.645
10853
FMC-GD
0.467
14921
0.635
15725
Appendix
Table 3: Comparison of FMC and FCA in terms of Balance and Cost on Adult and Bank datasets.
Figure 7: (Left) Pareto front lines between Δ and Cost on Census dataset, without L2 normalization. (Right) Pareto front lines between Balance and Cost on Census dataset, without L2 normalization.
Method (Nn)
Cost ( ×107 )
Δ
Balance
Time
SS (1%)
3.073
0.011
0.832
52.4%
SS (3%)
2.907
0.006
0.895
54.5%
SS (5%)
3.096
0.003
0.898
58.5%
SS (10%)
3.049
0.003
0.902
79.2%
MB (10%)
3.043
0.003
0.896
100.0%
Appendix
Table 4: Performances of mini-batch learning (MB) and sub-sample learning (SS) on Census dataset, without L2 normalization. The computation times of SS are measured by the relative ratio compared to the mini-batch learning with 10% , and the Lagrangian λ for each case is tuned to achieve the lowest Gap value i.e., Δ≈0.
Dataset
Adult
Bank
Credit
Algorithm
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Standard clustering
MM-GD
0.004
8.609
0.089
0.322
9.706
0.037
0.534
5.749
0.030
MM-EM
0.004
8.618
0.099
0.312
9.771
0.030
0.534
5.751
0.029
Fair clustering
FMC-GD
0.467
9.524
0.008
0.631
9.919
0.002
0.732
8.232
0.005
FMC-EM
0.480
11.600
0.001
0.633
9.940
0.002
0.739
7.706
0.001
Appendix
Table 5: Clustering results (i.e., Balance, NLL, and Δ ) on three datasets with categorical data.
Dataset
Bank
Credit
Algorithm
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Standard clustering
MM-GD
0.119
9.700
0.027
0.286
5.762
0.029
MM-EM
0.114
9.717
0.027
0.298
5.791
0.028
Fair clustering
FMC-GD
0.180
10.026
0.002
0.371
8.474
0.003
FMC-EM
0.179
10.281
0.002
0.373
7.617
0.006
Appendix
Table 6: Clustering results (i.e., Balance, NLL, and Δ ) on two datasets with categorical data for M=3 .
Dataset
Bank
Credit
Algorithm
Balance ↑
Cost ↓
Δ↓
Balance ↑
NLL ↓
Δ↓
Standard clustering
K -means
0.087
8513
0.055
0.159
4901
0.056
MM-EM
0.085
8538
0.108
0.151
4954
0.110
Fair clustering
VFC
0.171
9373
0.016
0.294
6058
0.019
FMC-EM ( λ=4 )
0.168
19059
0.013
0.295
22047
0.017
FMC-EM ( λ=10 )
0.180
20040
0.000
0.375
23067
0.000
Appendix
Table 7: Clustering results (i.e., Balance, Cost, and Δ ) on Bank and Credit datasets with continuous data for M=3 . We set λ=4 to compare with VFC (e.g., Δ≈0.016 for Bank) and λ=10.0 to achieve the perfect fairness (i.e., Δ≈0 ).
Figure 8: The effects of K on NLL, Δ, and Balance (from left to right) for FMC-EM (solid orange line) and MM-EM (dotted gray line) on Adult dataset. The number of clusters K ranges from 2 to 10.
Figure 9: Comparison of different covariance structures (isotropic vs. diagonal) in FMC-EM and FMC-GD on Adult, Bank, and Credit datasets, in terms of the negative log-likelihood (NLL) and Balance. σ2I denotes the results from isotropic covariance and diag denotes the results from diagonal covariance.
Figure 10: Convergence of FMC-EM (with λ=5.0 ) in terms of NLL, Cost, Δ, and Balance on Adult dataset.
Figure 11: Δ vs. Balance on Adult dataset. The points are obtained from FMC-EM with various values of λ.
Method
Accuracy ↑
Δ↓
Balance ↑
SFC
0.573
0.006
0.490
FMC (continuous only, λ=10 )
0.579
0.000
0.491
FMC (continuous + categorical, λ=10 )
0.706
0.000
0.488
VFC
0.621
0.070
0.429
FMC (continuous only, λ=1 )
0.627
0.071
0.411
FMC (continuous + categorical, λ=1 )
0.703
0.054
0.430
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of classification accuracy between continuous-only methods and FMC applied jointly to (xcont,xcate) for K=2, on Adult dataset. We set λ=10 when comparing with SFC ( Δ≈0 ) and λ=1 when comparing with VFC ( Δ≈0.07 ).
Clustering is an unsupervised machine learning task that consists of identifying groups of similar objects. It has numerous applications and is increasingly used in fairness-sensitive domains where objects represent individuals, such as customers, employees, or students. We address a fair clustering problem in which objects belong to protected groups. The problem consists of partitioning the objects into a predefined number of clusters while attaining a user-defined target level of fairness, meaning that each protected group is sufficiently represented in each cluster. The objective is to minimize the clustering cost, defined as the sum of squared Euclidean distances between the objects and the centers of their clusters. Since clustering cost and fairness are generally in conflict, managing the trade-off between them is essential in practical applications. Existing methods provide limited control over this trade-off and either fail to scale to large datasets or, when they scale, produce low-quality solutions. We propose a general framework for fair clustering that provides precise control over the cost-fairness trade-off and introduce three heuristics based on it. The first heuristic focuses on solution quality and the flexibility to incorporate additional constraints, the second improves scalability while retaining high solution quality, and the third is designed for maximum scalability, producing solutions for instances with millions of objects in seconds. The proposed heuristics outperform existing approaches in comprehensive numerical experiments on benchmark datasets. The source code of our heuristics and instructions for reproducing the experiments are publicly available on GitHub.
Claudio Mantuano, Manuel Kammermann, Philipp Baumann
Department of Business Administration, University of Bern, Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
In recent years, there has been a surge in effort to formalize notions of fairness in machine learning. We focus on centroid clustering--one of the fundamental tasks in unsupervised machine learning. We propose a new axiom ``proportionally representative fairness'' (PRF) that is designed for clustering problems where the selection of centroids reflects the distribution of data points and how tightly they are clustered together. Our fairness concept is not satisfied by existing fair clustering algorithms. We design efficient algorithms to achieve PRF both for unconstrained and discrete clustering problems. Our algorithm for the unconstrained setting is also the first known polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the well-studied Proportional Fairness (PF) axiom. Our algorithm for the discrete setting also matches the best known approximation factor for PF.
Haris Aziz, Barton E. Lee, Sean Morota Chu +1
UNSW Sydney · ETH Zürich · Northwestern University
Fair clustering aims to make cluster assignments independent of sensitive attributes, but this goal becomes challenging when multiple sensitive attributes jointly define many subgroups. In such settings, directly extending existing fair clustering algorithms is computationally expensive or numerically unstable, especially when the number of subgroups grows exponentially and some subgroups contain only a few instances. To address these challenges, we define a subgroup-fairness gap for clustering and derive a covariance-based surrogate that exactly matches this gap. We then introduce a continuous relaxation of the surrogate, enabling efficient gradient-based optimization and yielding our proposed algorithm, COVA-FC. We also show that subgroup fairness alone does not imply marginal fairness, and extend our framework to capture a subgroup-marginal-fairness gap. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that COVA-FC achieves competitive cost-fairness trade-offs and improves computational efficiency over existing baselines in both subgroup and higher-order marginal settings.
Kyungseon Lee, Hankyo Jeong, Kunwoong Kim +2
Department of Statistics, Seoul National University · KAIST AI