Fair Classification and Social Welfare
  Now that machine learning algorithms lie at the center of many resource
allocation pipelines, computer scientists have been unwittingly cast as partial
social planners. Given this state of affairs, important questions follow. What
is the relationship between fairness as defined by computer scientists and
notions of social welfare? In this paper, we present a welfare-based analysis
of classification and fairness regimes. We translate a loss minimization
program into a social welfare maximization problem with a set of implied
welfare weights on individuals and groups--weights that can be analyzed from a
distribution justice lens. In the converse direction, we ask what the space of
possible labelings is for a given dataset and hypothesis class. We provide an
algorithm that answers this question with respect to linear hyperplanes in
$\mathbb{R}^d$ that runs in $O(n^dd)$. Our main findings on the relationship
between fairness criteria and welfare center on sensitivity analyses of
fairness-constrained empirical risk minimization programs. We characterize the
ranges of $\Delta \epsilon$ perturbations to a fairness parameter $\epsilon$
that yield better, worse, and neutral outcomes in utility for individuals and
by extension, groups. We show that applying more strict fairness criteria that
are codified as parity constraints, can worsen welfare outcomes for both
groups. More generally, always preferring "more fair" classifiers does not
abide by the Pareto Principle---a fundamental axiom of social choice theory and
welfare economics. Recent work in machine learning has rallied around these
notions of fairness as critical to ensuring that algorithmic systems do not
have disparate negative impact on disadvantaged social groups. By showing that
these constraints often fail to translate into improved outcomes for these
groups, we cast doubt on their effectiveness as a means to ensure justice.
