From Soft Classifiers to Hard Decisions: How fair can we be?
  A popular methodology for building binary decision-making classifiers in the
presence of imperfect information is to first construct a non-binary "scoring"
classifier that is calibrated over all protected groups, and then to
post-process this score to obtain a binary decision. We study the feasibility
of achieving various fairness properties by post-processing calibrated scores,
and then show that deferring post-processors allow for more fairness conditions
to hold on the final decision. Specifically, we show:
  1. There does not exist a general way to post-process a calibrated classifier
to equalize protected groups' positive or negative predictive value (PPV or
NPV). For certain "nice" calibrated classifiers, either PPV or NPV can be
equalized when the post-processor uses different thresholds across protected
groups, though there exist distributions of calibrated scores for which the two
measures cannot be both equalized. When the post-processing consists of a
single global threshold across all groups, natural fairness properties, such as
equalizing PPV in a nontrivial way, do not hold even for "nice" classifiers.
  2. When the post-processing is allowed to `defer' on some decisions (that is,
to avoid making a decision by handing off some examples to a separate process),
then for the non-deferred decisions, the resulting classifier can be made to
equalize PPV, NPV, false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR)
across the protected groups. This suggests a way to partially evade the
impossibility results of Chouldechova and Kleinberg et al., which preclude
equalizing all of these measures simultaneously. We also present different
deferring strategies and show how they affect the fairness properties of the
overall system.
  We evaluate our post-processing techniques using the COMPAS data set from
2016.
