Pool auditors' queries to cut fairness-estimate error — but avoid heavy pre-coordination when many agents join.

Overview

Production Readiness

0.6

Novelty Score

0.5

Cost Impact Score

0.6

Citation Count

Authors

Martijn de Vos, Akash Dhasade, Jade Garcia Bourrée, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Erwan Le Merrer, Benoit Rottembourg, Gilles Tredan

Links

Abstract / PDF

Why It Matters For Business

Pooling audit queries across teams cuts the number of queries needed to detect bias and improves fairness estimates; avoid heavy pre-coordination when many teams audit the same platform because it can increase error.

Summary TLDR

This paper studies multiple auditors (agents) that query the same black-box classifier to estimate demographic parity (DP). It compares no collaboration, a-posteriori collaboration (share query-response logs after queries), and a-priori collaboration (coordinate queries before issuing them), under three sampling methods: uniform, stratified, Neyman. Main takeaways: (1) collaboration generally reduces DP estimation error; (2) with many agents, simple uniform sampling under a-posteriori collaboration is nearly as good as more complex methods; (3) surprisingly, a-priori collaboration combined with stratified sampling can worsen error as the number of agents grows. Experiments on Folktables, Pro

Problem Statement

Auditors have a limited total number of black-box queries and must estimate group-level fairness (demographic parity) across multiple protected attributes. Can multiple agents auditing different attributes improve accuracy by collaborating? Which collaboration and sampling strategies minimize estimation variance under realistic black-box constraints?

Main Contribution

Formal multi-agent auditing setup comparing no collaboration, a-posteriori (share query-responses), and a-priori (coordinate queries) strategies.

Theoretical analysis of how collaboration and three sampling methods (uniform, stratified, Neyman) affect the variance of demographic parity estimates.

Empirical validation on three real datasets (Folktables, German Credit, ProPublica) showing collaboration benefits and the counter-intuitive failure of a-priori stratified sampling when many agents collaborate.

Key Findings

Collaboration reduces average DP estimation variance versus independent audits.

NumbersEmpirical DP error reduced by 17.4%–24.6% (Fig.3, Section 6.1).

With a-posteriori collaboration, advanced sampling gains vanish as agent count grows.

NumbersAt m=5, uniform ≈ stratified; Neyman vs stratified error diff <0.001 (Section 6.2, Fig.4).

Pre-coordinating (a-priori) with stratified sampling can increase error as agents increase.

NumbersTheory: variance → ∞ as m→∞ under Observation 1; empirically harmful already at m=5 (Fig.5).

Neyman sampling is optimal but impractical; its empirical improvement over stratified is tiny.

NumbersNeyman best in theory; difference to stratified <0.001 on average DP error (Section 6.2).

Results

Average DP error (collaboration vs none)

Value17.4%–24.6% reduction

BaselineNo collaboration

Uniform vs stratified error at m=5

Valuenearly equal

BaselineStratified

A-priori stratified sampling variance trend

Valueincreases with m (theoretical blow-up)

BaselineNo collaboration / a-posteriori

Who Should Care

Product ManagerMl EngineerEngineering LeadData ScientistCto

What To Try In 7 Days

Run simple a-posteriori collaboration: pool query-response logs across auditors and recompute DP.

If many auditors will join, switch to uniform random sampling per auditor — it's easy and nearly optimal.

Avoid rigid pre-planned per-intersection sampling (a-priori stratified) when auditing many attributes.

Agent Features

Planning

multi-agent coordination (a-priori vs a-posteriori)

Tool Use

shared query-response logs

Collaboration

a-posteriori (share after queries)
a-priori (coordinate before queries)

Reproducibility

Code Urls

https://github.com/sacs-epfl/fairness-audits-with-collaboration

Data Urls

Folktables (public)
German Credit (UCI)
ProPublica (COMPAS)

Code Available

Data Available

Open Source Status

partial

Risks & Boundaries

Limitations

Assumes protected attributes are independent; real-world correlations can change results.
Experiments simulate black-box behavior by using dataset labels as responses; no deployed model tested.
Focuses on binary attributes; intersectional multi-valued cases are only partly explored.

When Not To Use

When protected attributes are strongly dependent and independence assumption fails.
When auditors can access white-box per-stratum variances and can implement Neyman sampling directly (use Neyman then).

Failure Modes

A-priori stratified coordination can starve large strata of samples as m grows, boosting variance.
Small or imbalanced datasets (very small N) can make pooled estimates unstable.
Hidden correlation between attributes invalidates theoretical variance formulas.

Core Entities

Models

black-box binary classifier (simulated via dataset labels)

Metrics

Demographic Parity (DP)

Datasets

Folktables (ACSPublicCoverage)
German Credit
ProPublica (COMPAS)