Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bayes-Optimal Classifiers under Group Fairness

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2202.09724 v5 pith:SB5F34VP submitted 2022-02-20 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords bayes-optimalclassifiersfairnessgroupunderbeenlearningmachine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Machine learning algorithms are becoming integrated into more and more high-stakes decision-making processes, such as in social welfare issues. Due to the need of mitigating the potentially disparate impacts from algorithmic predictions, many approaches have been proposed in the emerging area of fair machine learning. However, the fundamental problem of characterizing Bayes-optimal classifiers under various group fairness constraints has only been investigated in some special cases. Based on the classical Neyman-Pearson argument (Neyman and Pearson, 1933; Shao, 2003) for optimal hypothesis testing, this paper provides a unified framework for deriving Bayes-optimal classifiers under group fairness. This enables us to propose a group-based thresholding method we call FairBayes, that can directly control disparity, and achieve an essentially optimal fairness-accuracy tradeoff. These advantages are supported by thorough experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Model for Imbalanced Label Aggregation: A Focus on Minority-Class Detection

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CC-Rasch recovers rare labels better than standard aggregators by letting both annotator competence and item difficulty vary by class, with supporting theory for majority vote under imbalance.

Pith tools