跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.14870 · v1

Synthetic Data Augmentation for Fairness under Data Imbalance: Theory and Adaptive Allocation

首次提交 2026-11-11 08:50
版本更新 2026-11-11 08:50
雷达观测 2026-11-13 10:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Data imbalance across sensitive groups and class labels is common in classification problems and can contribute to substantial fairness disparities. We study how such imbalance affects Equal Opportunity and how synthetic data augmentation can mitigate the resulting unfairness. We first identify two mechanisms, prevalence imbalance and group-size imbalance, through which changes in the training distribution shift the learned decision boundary and induce disparities in group true positive rates. Motivated by this analysis, we study exact full-balance augmentation, which equalizes all group-label cells. We establish conditions under which full balancing strictly improves Equal Opportunity together with a prediction-error comparison under the oracle balanced distribution, and show that the Equal Opportunity gap of the synthetic-data classifier converges to that of the oracle balanced classifier as the sample size grows and the generator error vanishes. The finite-sample convergence rate agrees, up to logarithmic factors and generator-approximation error, with the information-theoretic lower-bound rate under the corresponding regularity regimes. Since exact balancing need not provide the best fairness-accuracy trade-off in practice, we further propose Accuracy-Constrained Adaptive Synthetic Augmentation (ACASA), which learns both where and how much to augment by minimizing estimated fairness disparity subject to a constraint on predictive accuracy. We provide a finite-sample guarantee comparing the selected augmentation allocation with the population-optimal accuracy-feasible allocation. Simulation studies and real data application support the theoretical findings and demonstrate that synthetic augmentation can substantially reduce fairness disparities while achieving favorable empirical fairness-accuracy trade-offs.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-11 08:50 · 最新观测版本

Synthetic Data Augmentation for Fairness under Data Imbalance: Theory and Adaptive Allocation

Data imbalance across sensitive groups and class labels is common in classification problems and can contribute to substantial fairness disparities. We study how such imbalance affects Equal Opportunity and how synthetic data augmentation can mitigate the resulting unfairness. We first identify two mechanisms, prevalence imbalance and group-size imbalance, through which changes in the training distribution shift the learned decision boundary and induce disparities in group true positive rates. Motivated by this analysis, we study exact full-balance augmentation, which equalizes all group-label cells. We establish conditions under which full balancing strictly improves Equal Opportunity together with a prediction-error comparison under the oracle balanced distribution, and show that the Equal Opportunity gap of the synthetic-data classifier converges to that of the oracle balanced classifier as the sample size grows and the generator error vanishes. The finite-sample convergence rate agrees, up to logarithmic factors and generator-approximation error, with the information-theoretic lower-bound rate under the corresponding regularity regimes. Since exact balancing need not provide the best fairness-accuracy trade-off in practice, we further propose Accuracy-Constrained Adaptive Synthetic Augmentation (ACASA), which learns both where and how much to augment by minimizing estimated fairness disparity subject to a constraint on predictive accuracy. We provide a finite-sample guarantee comparing the selected augmentation allocation with the population-optimal accuracy-feasible allocation. Simulation studies and real data application support the theoretical findings and demonstrate that synthetic augmentation can substantially reduce fairness disparities while achieving favorable empirical fairness-accuracy trade-offs.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗