Automated data-driven decision making systems are increasingly being used to assist, or even replace humans in many settings. These systems function by learning from historical decisions, often taken by humans. In order to maximize the utility of these systems (or, classifiers), their training involves minimizing the errors (or, misclassifications) over the given historical data. However, it is quite possible that the optimally trained classifier makes decisions for people belonging to different social groups with different misclassification rates (e.g., misclassification rates for females are higher than for males), thereby placing these groups at an unfair disadvantage. To account for and avoid such unfairness, in this paper, we introduce a new notion of unfairness, disparate mistreatment, which is defined in terms of misclassification rates. We then propose intuitive measures of disparate mistreatment for decision boundary-based classifiers, which can be easily incorporated into their formulation as convex-concave constraints. Experiments on synthetic as well as real world datasets show that our methodology is effective at avoiding disparate mistreatment, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.
Related Work There have been a number of studies, including our own prior work @cite_12 , proposing methods for detecting @cite_4 @cite_22 @cite_14 @cite_28 and removing @cite_29 @cite_4 @cite_18 @cite_5 @cite_0 @cite_14 @cite_12 @cite_2 unfairness when it is defined in terms of disparate treatment, disparate impact or both. However, as pointed out earlier, the disparate impact notion might be less meaningful in scenarios where ground truth decisions are available.
@cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_4 @cite_22 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_0 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_12
2952092676 2014352947 2949871360 1961345416
What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny. What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender) and an explicit description of the process. When computers are involved, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the process, we propose making inferences based on the data it uses. We present four contributions. First, we link disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on how well the protected class can be predicted from the other attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny. In recent years, automated data-driven decision-making systems have enjoyed a tremendous success in a variety of fields (e.g., to make product recommendations, or to guide the production of entertainment). More recently, these algorithms are increasingly being used to assist socially sensitive decision-making (e.g., to decide who to admit into a degree program or to prioritize individuals for public housing). Yet, these automated tools may result in discriminative decision-making in the sense that they may treat individuals unfairly or unequally based on membership to a category or a minority, resulting in disparate treatment or disparate impact and violating both moral and ethical standards. This may happen when the training dataset is itself biased (e.g., if individuals belonging to a particular group have historically been discriminated upon). However, it may also happen when the training dataset is unbiased, if the errors made by the system affect individuals belonging to a category or minority differently (e.g., if misclassification rates for Blacks are higher than for Whites). In this paper, we unify the definitions of unfairness across classification and regression. We propose a versatile mixed-integer optimization framework for learning optimal and fair decision trees and variants thereof to prevent disparate treatment and or disparate impact as appropriate. This translates to a flexible schema for designing fair and interpretable policies suitable for socially sensitive decision-making. We conduct extensive computational studies that show that our framework improves the state-of-the-art in the field (which typically relies on heuristics) to yield non-discriminative decisions at lower cost to overall accuracy. With the spread of data mining technologies and the accumulation of social data, such technologies and data are being used for determinations that seriously affect individuals' lives. For example, credit scoring is frequently determined based on the records of past credit data together with statistical prediction techniques. Needless to say, such determinations must be nondiscriminatory and fair in sensitive features, such as race, gender, religion, and so on. Several researchers have recently begun to attempt the development of analysis techniques that are aware of social fairness or discrimination. They have shown that simply avoiding the use of sensitive features is insufficient for eliminating biases in determinations, due to the indirect influence of sensitive information. In this paper, we first discuss three causes of unfairness in machine learning. We then propose a regularization approach that is applicable to any prediction algorithm with probabilistic discriminative models. We further apply this approach to logistic regression and empirically show its effectiveness and efficiency.