Kavya Gupta

Kavya Gupta, Nektarios Kalampalikis, Christoph Heitz et al.

Fairness in algorithmic decision-making is often defined in the predictive space, where predictive performance - used as a proxy for decision-maker (DM) utility - is traded off against prediction-based fairness notions, such as demographic parity or equality of opportunity. This perspective, however, ignores how predictions translate into decisions and ultimately into utilities and welfare for both DM and decision subjects (DS), as well as their allocation across social-salient groups. In this paper, we propose a multi-stakeholder framework for fair algorithmic decision-making grounded in welfare economics and distributive justice, explicitly modeling the utilities of both the DM and DS, and defining fairness via a social planner's utility that captures inequalities in DS utilities across groups under different justice-based fairness notions (e.g., Egalitarian, Rawlsian). We formulate fair decision-making as a post-hoc multi-objective optimization problem, characterizing the achievable performance-fairness trade-offs in the two-dimensional utility space of DM utility and the social planner's utility, under different decision policy classes (deterministic vs. stochastic, shared vs. group-specific). Using the proposed framework, we then identify conditions (in terms of the stakeholders' utilities) under which stochastic policies are more optimal than deterministic ones, and empirically demonstrate that simple stochastic policies can yield superior performance-fairness trade-offs by leveraging outcome uncertainty. Overall, we advocate a shift from prediction-centric fairness to a transparent, justice-based, multi-stakeholder approach that supports the collaborative design of decision-making policies.

Nektarios Kalampalikis, Kavya Gupta, Georgi Vitanov et al.

In this paper, we propose $\textbf{C}$oncept $\textbf{REA}$soning $\textbf{M}$odels (CREAM), a novel family of Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) that: (i) explicitly encodes concept-concept (${\texttt{C-C}}$) and concept-task (${\texttt{C$\rightarrow$Y}}$) relationships to enforce a desired model reasoning; and (ii) use a regularized side-channel to achieve competitive task performance, while keeping high concept importance. Specifically, CREAM architecturally embeds (bi)directed concept-concept, and concept to task relationships specified by a human expert, while severing undesired information flows (e.g., to handle mutually exclusive concepts). Moreover, CREAM integrates a black-box side-channel that is regularized to encourage task predictions to be grounded in the relevant concepts, thereby utilizing the side-channel only when necessary to enhance performance. Our experiments show that: (i) CREAM mainly relies on concepts while achieving task performance on par with black-box models; and (ii) the embedded ${\texttt{C-C}}$ and ${\texttt{C$\rightarrow$Y}}$ relationships ease model interventions and mitigate concept leakage.

Ayan Majumdar, Deborah D. Kanubala, Kavya Gupta et al.

Fairness studies of algorithmic decision-making systems often simplify complex decision processes, such as bail or loan approvals, into binary classification tasks. However, these approaches overlook that such decisions are not inherently binary (e.g., approve or not approve bail or loan); they also involve non-binary treatment decisions (e.g., bail conditions or loan terms) that can influence the downstream outcomes (e.g., loan repayment or reoffending). In this paper, we argue that non-binary treatment decisions are integral to the decision process and controlled by decision-makers and, therefore, should be central to fairness analyses in algorithmic decision-making. We propose a causal framework that extends fairness analyses and explicitly distinguishes between decision-subjects' covariates and the treatment decisions. This specification allows decision-makers to use our framework to (i) measure treatment disparity and its downstream effects in historical data and, using counterfactual reasoning, (ii) mitigate the impact of past unfair treatment decisions when automating decision-making. We use our framework to empirically analyze four widely used loan approval datasets to reveal potential disparity in non-binary treatment decisions and their discriminatory impact on outcomes, highlighting the need to incorporate treatment decisions in fairness assessments. Moreover, by intervening in treatment decisions, we show that our framework effectively mitigates treatment discrimination from historical data to ensure fair risk score estimation and (non-binary) decision-making processes that benefit all stakeholders.