Sushant Agarwal

Sushant Agarwal, Amit Deshpande

Fair classification and fair representation learning are two important problems in supervised and unsupervised fair machine learning, respectively. Fair classification asks for a classifier that maximizes accuracy on a given data distribution subject to fairness constraints. Fair representation maps a given data distribution over the original feature space to a distribution over a new representation space such that all classifiers over the representation satisfy fairness. In this paper, we examine the power of randomization in both these problems to minimize the loss of accuracy that results when we impose fairness constraints. Previous work on fair classification has characterized the optimal fair classifiers on a given data distribution that maximize accuracy subject to fairness constraints, e.g., Demographic Parity (DP), Equal Opportunity (EO), and Predictive Equality (PE). We refine these characterizations to demonstrate when the optimal randomized fair classifiers can surpass their deterministic counterparts in accuracy. We also show how the optimal randomized fair classifier that we characterize can be obtained as a solution to a convex optimization problem. Recent work has provided techniques to construct fair representations for a given data distribution such that any classifier over this representation satisfies DP. However, the classifiers on these fair representations either come with no or weak accuracy guarantees when compared to the optimal fair classifier on the original data distribution. Extending our ideas for randomized fair classification, we improve on these works, and construct DP-fair, EO-fair, and PE-fair representations that have provably optimal accuracy and suffer no accuracy loss compared to the optimal DP-fair, EO-fair, and PE-fair classifiers respectively on the original data distribution.

Tosca Lechner, Shai Ben-David, Sushant Agarwal et al.

With the growing awareness to fairness in machine learning and the realization of the central role that data representation has in data processing tasks, there is an obvious interest in notions of fair data representations. The goal of such representations is that a model trained on data under the representation (e.g., a classifier) will be guaranteed to respect some fairness constraints. Such representations are useful when they can be fixed for training models on various different tasks and also when they serve as data filtering between the raw data (known to the representation designer) and potentially malicious agents that use the data under the representation to learn predictive models and make decisions. A long list of recent research papers strive to provide tools for achieving these goals. However, we prove that this is basically a futile effort. Roughly stated, we prove that no representation can guarantee the fairness of classifiers for different tasks trained using it; even the basic goal of achieving label-independent Demographic Parity fairness fails once the marginal data distribution shifts. More refined notions of fairness, like Odds Equality, cannot be guaranteed by a representation that does not take into account the task specific labeling rule with respect to which such fairness will be evaluated (even if the marginal data distribution is known a priory). Furthermore, except for trivial cases, no representation can guarantee Odds Equality fairness for any two different tasks, while allowing accurate label predictions for both. While some of our conclusions are intuitive, we formulate (and prove) crisp statements of such impossibilities, often contrasting impressions conveyed by many recent works on fair representations.

Sushant Agarwal, Shahin Jabbari, Chirag Agarwal et al.

As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in critical domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there has been a growing emphasis on developing techniques for explaining these black boxes in a post hoc manner. In this work, we analyze two popular post hoc interpretation techniques: SmoothGrad which is a gradient based method, and a variant of LIME which is a perturbation based method. More specifically, we derive explicit closed form expressions for the explanations output by these two methods and show that they both converge to the same explanation in expectation, i.e., when the number of perturbed samples used by these methods is large. We then leverage this connection to establish other desirable properties, such as robustness, for these techniques. We also derive finite sample complexity bounds for the number of perturbations required for these methods to converge to their expected explanation. Finally, we empirically validate our theory using extensive experimentation on both synthetic and real world datasets.