Accuracy vs. Accuracy: Computational Tradeoffs Between Classification Rates and Utility

We revisit the foundations of fairness and its interplay with utility and efficiency in settings where the training data contain richer labels, such as individual types, rankings, or risk estimates, rather than just binary outcomes. In this context, we propose algorithms that achieve stronger notions of evidence-based fairness than are possible in standard supervised learning. Our methods support classification and ranking techniques that preserve accurate subpopulation classification rates, as suggested by the underlying data distributions, across a broad class of classification rules and downstream applications. Furthermore, our predictors enable loss minimization, whether aimed at maximizing utility or in the service of fair treatment. Complementing our algorithmic contributions, we present impossibility results demonstrating that simultaneously achieving accurate classification rates and optimal loss minimization is, in some cases, computationally infeasible. Unlike prior impossibility results, our notions are not inherently in conflict and are simultaneously satisfied by the Bayes-optimal predictor. Furthermore, we show that each notion can be satisfied individually via efficient learning. Our separation thus stems from the computational hardness of learning a sufficiently good approximation of the Bayes-optimal predictor. These computational impossibilities present a choice between two natural and attainable notions of accuracy that could both be motivated by fairness.

Models That Prove Their Own Correctness

How can we trust the correctness of a learned model on a particular input of interest? Model accuracy is typically measured \emph{on average} over a distribution of inputs, giving no guarantee for any fixed input. This paper proposes a theoretically-founded solution to this problem: to train *Self-Proving models* that prove the correctness of their output to a verification algorithm $V$ via an Interactive Proof. Self-Proving models satisfy that, with high probability over a random input, the model generates a correct output \emph{and} successfully proves its correctness to $V\!$. The *soundness* property of $V$ guarantees that, for *every* input, no model can convince $V$ of the correctness of an incorrect output. Thus, a Self-Proving model proves correctness of most of its outputs, while *all* incorrect outputs (of any model) are detected by $V$. We devise a generic method for learning Self-Proving models, and we prove convergence bounds under certain assumptions. The theoretical framework and results are complemented by experiments on an arithmetic capability: computing the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. Our learning method is used to train a Self-Proving transformer that computes the GCD *and* proves the correctness of its answer.