Classification Utility, Fairness, and Compactness via Tunable Information Bottleneck and Rényi Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing machine learning algorithms that are accurate yet fair, not discriminating based on any sensitive attribute, is of paramount importance for society to accept AI for critical applications. In this article, we propose a novel fair representation learning method termed the Rényi Fair Information Bottleneck Method (RFIB) which incorporates constraints for utility, fairness, and compactness (compression) of representation, and apply it to image and tabular data classification. A key attribute of our approach is that we consider - in contrast to most prior work - both demographic parity and equalized odds as fairness constraints, allowing for a more nuanced satisfaction of both criteria. Leveraging a variational approach, we show that our objectives yield a loss function involving classical Information Bottleneck (IB) measures and establish an upper bound in terms of two Rényi measures of order$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$on the mutual information IB term measuring compactness between the input and its encoded embedding. We study the influence of the$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$parameter as well as two other tunable IB parameters on achieving utility/fairness trade-off goals, and show that the$ \boldsymbol {\alpha }$parameter gives an additional degree of freedom that can be used to control the compactness of the representation. Experimenting on three different image datasets (EyePACS, CelebA, and FairFace) and two tabular datasets (Adult and COMPAS), using both binary and categorical sensitive attributes, we show that on various utility, fairness, and compound utility/fairness metrics RFIB outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".