Fairness on Principal Stratum: A New Perspective on Counterfactual Fairness

Fairness in human and algorithmic decision-making is crucial in areas such as criminal justice, education, and social welfare. Recently, counterfactual fairness has drawn increasing research interest, suggesting that decision-making for individuals should remain the same when intervening with different values on protected attributes. Nevertheless, the question of "which attributes and individuals should be protected" is rarely discussed in the existing counterfactual fairness literature. For example, when considering leg disability as a protected attribute, the algorithms should not treat individuals with leg disabilities differently in college admissions, but one may naturally consider this factor when selecting runner athletes. In other words, when and how to enforce fairness is expected to depend on the causal relation between the protected attribute and the outcome of interest. Formally, this paper proposes principal counterfactual fairness using the concept of principal stratification from the causal inference literature, focusing on whether an algorithm is counterfactually fair for individuals whose protected attribute has no individual causal effect on the outcome of interest. To examine whether an algorithm satisfies principal counterfactual fairness, we derive the statistical bounds and propose a post-processing approach to achieving principal counterfactual fairness with minimal individual decision changes. Experiments are conducted using synthetic and real-world datasets to verify the effectiveness of our methods.

This paper extends the widely-used counterfactual fairness that 'the decision-making should be same between factual and counterfactual for all individuals' to the new counterfactual fairness notion that 'if some factors didn't influence an individual's outcome, then it shouldn't influence the individual's decision-making'.