Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates fairness in machine learning algorithms that make decisions under strict resource constraints, such as allocating medical appointments or special program access. It adapts fairness definitions from resource allocation schemes to the algorithmic fairness context, highlighting the trade-offs between fairness and utility. The authors demonstrate that enforcing standard fairness definitions can lead to an unbounded price of fairness compared to pure utility maximization, and propose adaptations of proportional fairness and equal opportunity that achieve a bounded price of fairness.
Standard notions of algorithmic fairness can be arbitrarily expensive in resource-constrained settings, but modified versions of proportional fairness and equal opportunity offer bounded costs.
In recent years many important societal decisions are made by machine-learning algorithms, and many such important decisions have strict capacity limits, allowing resources to be allocated only to the highest utility individuals. For example, allocating physician appointments to the patients most likely to have some medical condition, or choosing which children will attend a special program. When performing such decisions, we consider both the prediction aspect of the decision and the resource allocation aspect. In this work we focus on the fairness of the decisions in such settings. The fairness aspect here is critical as the resources are limited, and allocating the resources to one individual leaves less resources for others. When the decision involves prediction together with the resource allocation, there is a risk that information gaps between different populations will lead to a very unbalanced allocation of resources. We address settings by adapting definitions from resource allocation schemes, identifying connections between the algorithmic fairness definitions and resource allocation ones, and examining the trade-offs between fairness and utility. We analyze the price of enforcing the different fairness definitions compared to a strictly utility-based optimization of the predictor, and show that it can be unbounded. We introduce an adaptation of proportional fairness and show that it has a bounded price of fairness, indicating greater robustness, and propose a variant of equal opportunity that also has a bounded price of fairness.
