Quantifying Infra-Marginality and Its Trade-off with Group Fairness
  In critical decision-making scenarios, optimizing accuracy can lead to a
biased classifier, hence past work recommends enforcing group-based fairness
metrics in addition to maximizing accuracy. However, doing so exposes the
classifier to another kind of bias called infra-marginality. This refers to
individual-level bias where some individuals/subgroups can be worse off than
under simply optimizing for accuracy. For instance, a classifier implementing
race-based parity may significantly disadvantage women of the advantaged race.
To quantify this bias, we propose a general notion of $\eta$-infra-marginality
that can be used to evaluate the extent of this bias. We prove theoretically
that, unlike other fairness metrics, infra-marginality does not have a
trade-off with accuracy: high accuracy directly leads to low infra-marginality.
This observation is confirmed through empirical analysis on multiple simulated
and real-world datasets. Further, we find that maximizing group fairness often
increases infra-marginality, suggesting the consideration of both group-level
fairness and individual-level infra-marginality. However, measuring
infra-marginality requires knowledge of the true distribution of
individual-level outcomes correctly and explicitly. We propose a practical
method to measure infra-marginality, and a simple algorithm to maximize
group-wise accuracy and avoid infra-marginality.
