Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Hazar Yueksel

Publications and source records attributed to Hazar Yueksel.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The Signed Geometry of One-Shot Recourse: On-Path Validity and the Signed-Curvature Criterion

Closed-form recourse moves a rejected user along the unit gradient $\hat g$ of the classifier score $f$ by the promised distance $d_p=|f(x)|/\|\nabla f(x)\|$, at which the linearized score reaches zero. We ask when this one-shot step succeeds and what additional model queries change. To leading order the step ends on the favorable side exactly when the path curvature $κ=\hat g^\top\nabla^2 f(x)\,\hat g$ is nonnegative. Across 80 shallow models, the fraction of rejected users whose step ends there and the fraction with $κ\ge0$ correlate at $r=0.985$, although on Fashion-MNIST the first falls below the second by 8.2 points on average. No rule that uses only the score value and gradient can be valid for every score with path curvature bounded by $K$ without overshooting some by order $Kd_p^2/\|\nabla f(x)\|$. When the curvature is also Lipschitz and the step is short, one evaluation of $f$ at the promised point attains the minimax rate among deterministic one-query rules that know the curvature bound and its Lipschitz constant, and split-conformal calibration makes such a rule reach the first crossing or abstain with probability at least $1-δ$. Training with an asymmetric curvature penalty lets 99-100% of paths cross within the promised step on undershoot-prone shallow data, at about 4-22 times the overshoot of symmetric penalties (Fashion-MNIST, COMPAS). Because $κ$ and $d_p$ depend on how the score is scaled, part of this gain can be a longer promised step, and at matched validity a smaller audit of briefly trained models finds no uniform advantage over tuned inflation. Where a per-user line search along the ray is affordable, it is exact to grid resolution and preferable.

cs.LG↗

Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing

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.

stat.ML↗