Scoring Is Not Enough: Addressing Gaps in Utility-fairness Trade-offs for Ranking

Many fairness criteria constrain the policy or choice of predictors, which can have unwanted consequences, in particular, when optimizing the policy under such constraints. Here, we in- stead suggest that fairness can be directly analyzed as a property of the utility function. Instead of imposing fairness constraints on the policy, we suggest to simply maximize a utility function satisfying certain fairness properties. Concretely, we define value of information fairness, which prescribes that there must not be an incentive to infer the protected attribute. This principle sug- gests modifying utility functions such that they satisfy value of information fairness. We describe how such modifications can be achieved and discuss consequences for the corresponding optimal policies. We apply our framework to thought experiments and the COMPAS data, demonstrating that focusing on utility functions sometimes provides answers that better align with intuitive judg- ments about what is fair. Moreover, we are not aware of any intuitively fair policy that violates value of information fairness; and when we find that value of information fairness recommends an intuitively unfair policy, no realizable policy is intuitively fair.

Individual fairness, the notion that "similar individuals should be treated similarly," provides a strong and flexible fairness guarantee for algorithmic decision makers. However, a barrier to implementing individual fairness in practice is the difficulty of learning the similarity metric over individuals. In this work, we present an algorithm for learning a Mahalanobis similarity metric from triplet queries of the form "is individual $i$ more similar to individual $j$ or $k$?" We work in the standard Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons. Our algorithm consists of a spectral initialization step followed by gradient descent. We provide extensive theoretical guarantees on our algorithm, showing that it converges quickly to the ground truth metric despite the non-convexity of the loss in our model. Because our focus is on fairness, we also show that individual fairness with respect to an estimated metric is sufficient to achieve similar fairness with respect to the true metric. We also discuss potential applications of our work to AI model tuning. Finally, we present experimental results that demonstrate the convergence of our algorithm and the fairness performance of downstream fair predictors trained on our estimated metric.

Designing fair algorithmic decision systems requires balancing model performance with fairness toward affected individuals: More fairness might require sacrificing some performance and vice versa, yet the space of possible trade-offs is still poorly understood. We investigate fairness in binary prediction-based decision problems by conceptualizing decision making as a multi-objective optimization problem that simultaneously considers decision-maker utility and group fairness. We investigate the set of Pareto-optimal decision rules for arbitrary utility functions for decision maker, arbitrary population distributions, and a wide range of group fairness metrics. We find that the Pareto frontier consists of deterministic, group-specific threshold rules applied to individuals' success probability. This complements existing optimality theorems from literature which, for specific fairness constraints, posit lower-bound threshold rules only. However we also show that, depending on the used fairness metric, the Pareto frontier may include upper-bound threshold rules, thus preferring individuals with lower success probabilities. We show that the location of the Pareto frontier depends only on population characteristics, utility functions and fairness score, but not on the technical design of the algorithm - our findings hold for pre-, in-, and post-processing approaches alike. Our results generalize existing optimality theorems for fairness-constrained classification and extend them to generalized fairness metrics and fairness principles, and to partial fairness regimes. This paper connects formal fairness research with legal and ethical requirements to search for less discriminatory alternatives, offering a principled foundation for evaluating and comparing algorithmic decision systems.