Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing
Sanghamitra Dutta, Dennis Wei, Hazar Yueksel, Pin-Yu Chen, Sijia Liu, Kush R. Varshney
Abstract
A trade-off between accuracy and fairness is almost taken as a given in the existing literature on fairness in machine learning. Yet, it is not preordained that accuracy should decrease with increased fairness. Novel to this work, we examine fair classification through the lens of mismatched hypothesis testing: trying to find a classifier that distinguishes between two ideal distributions when given two mismatched distributions that are biased. Using Chernoff information, a tool in information theory, we theoretically demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, there always exist ideal distributions such that optimal fairness and accuracy (with respect to the ideal distributions) are achieved simultaneously: there is no trade-off. Moreover, the same classifier yields the lack of a trade-off with respect to ideal distributions while yielding a trade-off when accuracy is measured with respect to the given (possibly biased) dataset. To complement our main result, we formulate an optimization to find ideal distributions and derive fundamental limits to explain why a trade-off exists on the given biased dataset. We also derive conditions under which active data collection can alleviate the fairness-accuracy trade-off in the real world. Our results lead us to contend that it is problematic to measure accuracy with respect to data that reflects bias, and instead, we should be considering accuracy with respect to ideal, unbiased data.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3c93fc74-1ce0-4832-b53a-cba1953bac87Cited by top-tier papers28
- On Learning Fairness and Accuracy on Multiple SubgroupsChangjian Shui, Gezheng Xu, Qi Chen, Jiaqi Li et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 58 citations
- Achieving Fairness at No Utility Cost via Data Reweighing with InfluencePeizhao Li, Hongfu LiuICML 2022 · 57 citations
- Learning Bias-Invariant Representation by Cross-Sample Mutual Information MinimizationWei Zhu, Haitian Zheng, Haofu Liao, Weijian Li et al.ICCV 2021 · 51 citations
- Are My Deep Learning Systems Fair? An Empirical Study of Fixed-Seed TrainingShangshu Qian, Hung Viet Pham, Thibaud Lutellier, Zeou Hu et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 49 citations
- Counterfactual Fairness with Partially Known Causal GraphAoqi Zuo, Susan Wei, Tongliang Liu, Bo Han et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 32 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- How Far Can Fairness Constraints Help Recover From Biased Data?Mohit Sharma, Amit DeshpandeICML 2024 · 7 citations
- On the Impossibility of Non-trivial Accuracy in Presence of Fairness ConstraintsCarlos Pinzón, Catuscia Palamidessi, Pablo Piantanida, Frank ValenciaAAAI 2022 · 11 citations
- Fairness without Harm: An Influence-Guided Active Sampling ApproachJinlong Pang, Jialu Wang, Zhaowei Zhu, Yuanshun Yao et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 13 citations
- Efficient Fairness-Performance Pareto Front ComputationMark Kozdoba, Binyamin Perets, Shie MannorNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- The Price of Fairness in Active Learning: Fundamental Limits and Optimal Label AcquisitionChang Lu, Yizheng ZhaoKDD 2026
