Fairness Criteria — Group, Individual, Counterfactual

Three families structure the fairness literature. Group fairness: demographic parity, equalized odds, conditional use accuracy equality — equal rates across protected groups on average. Individual fairness (Dwork et al. 2012): similar individuals receive similar decisions; Lipschitz condition on the decision map. Counterfactual fairness (Kusner et al. 2017): a decision is fair to an individual if it is unchanged when sensitive attributes are counterfactually altered. 2024 theoretical result (NeurIPS 2024): there is an inherent CF-vs-accuracy trade-off; a model-agnostic method converts an optimal-but-unfair predictor into a CF one with bounded accuracy loss. Backtracking counterfactuals (arXiv:2401.13935, January 2024): new paradigm that avoids requiring interventions on legally protected attributes. Philosophical reconciliation (ICLR Blogposts 2024): with causal graphs, satisfying certain group fairness measures entails counterfactual fairness.

Learn 1 hr Python (stdlib, three-criteria comparison)

Prerequisites: Phase 18 · 20 (bias), Phase 02 (classical ML)

#Learning Objectives

  • State the three group-fairness criteria (demographic parity, equalized odds, conditional use accuracy equality) and one impossibility result.
  • Describe individual fairness via the Dwork et al. 2012 Lipschitz formulation.
  • Describe counterfactual fairness and its causal-graph dependency.
  • Explain backtracking counterfactuals and why they sidestep the intervention-on-protected-attribute problem.
Full Access lesson

Keep going. The rest of this lesson is one step away.

Unlock all 503 lessons, video, code, quizzes and every future update. Pay in your own currency with Paystack.

The text and code of this lesson are based on AI Engineering from Scratch by Rohit Ghumare, MIT licensed.