1: \begin{abstract}

2:   \cite{KNRW18} recently proposed a notion of \emph{rich subgroup

3:     fairness} intended to bridge the gap between statistical and

4:   individual notions of fairness. Rich subgroup fairness picks a

5:   statistical fairness constraint (say, equalizing false positive

6:   rates across protected groups), but then asks that this constraint

7:   hold over an exponentially or infinitely large collection of

8:   \emph{subgroups} defined by a class of functions with bounded VC

9:   dimension.  They give an algorithm guaranteed to learn subject to

10:   this constraint, under the condition that it has access to oracles

11:   for perfectly learning absent a fairness constraint. In this paper,

12:   we undertake an extensive empirical evaluation of the algorithm of

13:   Kearns et al.  On four real datasets for which fairness is a

14:   concern, we investigate the basic convergence of the algorithm when

15:   instantiated with fast heuristics in place of learning oracles,

16:   measure the tradeoffs between fairness and accuracy, and compare

17:   this approach with the recent algorithm of \cite{MSR}, which

18:   implements weaker and more traditional marginal fairness constraints

19:   defined by individual protected attributes. We find that in general,

20:   the Kearns et al.  algorithm converges quickly, large gains in

21:   fairness can be obtained with mild costs to accuracy, and that

22:   optimizing accuracy subject only to marginal fairness leads to

23:   classifiers with substantial subgroup unfairness.  We also provide a

24:   number of analyses and visualizations of the dynamics and behavior

25:   of the Kearns et al. algorithm.  Overall we find this algorithm to

26:   be effective on real data, and rich subgroup fairness to be a viable

27:   notion in practice.

28: \end{abstract}

29: