Beyond Impossibility: Balancing Sufficiency, Separation and Accuracy
This work addresses fairness issues in predictive systems like COMPAS, offering a practical approach to balance conflicting fairness criteria, though it is incremental as it builds on existing theoretical understanding.
The paper tackles the tension between sufficiency and separation in algorithmic fairness by proposing an objective to balance these measures while maintaining accuracy, showing promising results in empirical case studies with better trade-offs compared to existing alternatives.
Among the various aspects of algorithmic fairness studied in recent years, the tension between satisfying both \textit{sufficiency} and \textit{separation} -- e.g. the ratios of positive or negative predictive values, and false positive or false negative rates across groups -- has received much attention. Following a debate sparked by COMPAS, a criminal justice predictive system, the academic community has responded by laying out important theoretical understanding, showing that one cannot achieve both with an imperfect predictor when there is no equal distribution of labels across the groups. In this paper, we shed more light on what might be still possible beyond the impossibility -- the existence of a trade-off means we should aim to find a good balance within it. After refining the existing theoretical result, we propose an objective that aims to balance \textit{sufficiency} and \textit{separation} measures, while maintaining similar accuracy levels. We show the use of such an objective in two empirical case studies, one involving a multi-objective framework, and the other fine-tuning of a model pre-trained for accuracy. We show promising results, where better trade-offs are achieved compared to existing alternatives.