As machine learning is increasingly used to make real-world decisions, recent research efforts aim to define and ensure fairness in algorithmic decision making. Existing methods often assume a fixed set of observable features to define individuals, but lack a discussion of certain features not being observed at test time. In this paper, we study fairness of naive Bayes classifiers, which allow partial observations. In particular, we introduce the notion of a discrimination pattern, which refers to an individual receiving different classifications depending on whether some sensitive attributes were observed. Then a model is considered fair if it has no such pattern. We propose an algorithm to discover and mine for discrimination patterns in a naive Bayes classifier, and show how to learn maximum-likelihood parameters subject to these fairness constraints. Our approach iteratively discovers and eliminates discrimination patterns until a fair model is learned. An empirical evaluation on three real-world datasets demonstrates that we can remove exponentially many discrimination patterns by only adding a small fraction of them as constraints.
An example of group fairness definition is statistical (demographic) parity, which states that a model is fair if the probability of getting a positive decision is equal between two groups defined by the sensitive attribute, i.e. @math where @math and @math are positive decision and sensitive variable, respectively. Approximate measures of statistical parity include CV-discrimination score @cite_2 : @math ; and disparate impact (or @math definition of @math -fairness is strictly stronger than requiring a small CV-discrimination score, as a violation of (approximate) statistical parity corresponds to a discrimination pattern with only the sensitive attribute (i.e. empty @math ). Even though the @math Moreover, the inadequacy of statistical parity in detecting bias for subgroups or individuals has been pointed out numerous times. We resolve such issue by eliminating discrimination patterns for all subgroups that can be expressed as assignments to subsets of features. In fact, we satisfy approximate statistical parity for any subgroup defined over the set of sensitive attributes, as any subgroup can be expressed as a union of joint assignments to the sensitive features, each of which has a bounded discrimination score. showed that auditing fairness at this arbitrary subgroup level (i.e. detecting ) is computationally hard.
@cite_2
2768894107 2947175317 2902208421 2732560823
The most prevalent notions of fairness in machine learning are statistical definitions: they fix a small collection of pre-defined groups, and then ask for parity of some statistic of the classifier across these groups. Constraints of this form are susceptible to intentional or inadvertent "fairness gerrymandering", in which a classifier appears to be fair on each individual group, but badly violates the fairness constraint on one or more structured subgroups defined over the protected attributes. We propose instead to demand statistical notions of fairness across exponentially (or infinitely) many subgroups, defined by a structured class of functions over the protected attributes. This interpolates between statistical definitions of fairness and recently proposed individual notions of fairness, but raises several computational challenges. It is no longer clear how to audit a fixed classifier to see if it satisfies such a strong definition of fairness. We prove that the computational problem of auditing subgroup fairness for both equality of false positive rates and statistical parity is equivalent to the problem of weak agnostic learning, which means it is computationally hard in the worst case, even for simple structured subclasses. We then derive two algorithms that provably converge to the best fair classifier, given access to oracles which can solve the agnostic learning problem. The algorithms are based on a formulation of subgroup fairness as a two-player zero-sum game between a Learner and an Auditor. Our first algorithm provably converges in a polynomial number of steps. Our second algorithm enjoys only provably asymptotic convergence, but has the merit of simplicity and faster per-step computation. We implement the simpler algorithm using linear regression as a heuristic oracle, and show that we can effectively both audit and learn fair classifiers on real datasets. Reducing hidden bias in the data and ensuring fairness in algorithmic data analysis has recently received significant attention. We complement several recent papers in this line of research by introducing a general method to reduce bias in the data through random projections in a fair'' subspace. We apply this method to densest subgraph and @math -means. For densest subgraph, our approach based on fair projections allows to recover both theoretically and empirically an almost optimal, fair, dense subgraph hidden in the input data. We also show that, under the small set expansion hypothesis, approximating this problem beyond a factor of @math is NP-hard and we show a polynomial time algorithm with a matching approximation bound. We further apply our method to @math -means. In a previous paper, [NIPS 2017] showed that problems such as @math -means can be approximated up to a constant factor while ensuring that none of two protected class (e.g., gender, ethnicity) is disparately impacted. We show that fair projections generalize the concept of fairlet introduced by to any number of protected attributes and improve empirically the quality of the resulting clustering. We also present the first constant-factor approximation for an arbitrary number of protected attributes thus settling an open problem recently addressed in several works. Motivated by settings in which predictive models may be required to be non-discriminatory with respect to certain attributes (such as race), but even collecting the sensitive attribute may be forbidden or restricted, we initiate the study of fair learning under the constraint of differential privacy. We design two learning algorithms that simultaneously promise differential privacy and equalized odds, a 'fairness' condition that corresponds to equalizing false positive and negative rates across protected groups. Our first algorithm is a private implementation of the equalized odds post-processing approach of [, 2016]. This algorithm is appealingly simple, but must be able to use protected group membership explicitly at test time, which can be viewed as a form of 'disparate treatment'. Our second algorithm is a differentially private version of the oracle-efficient in-processing approach of [, 2018] that can be used to find the optimal fair classifier, given access to a subroutine that can solve the original (not necessarily fair) learning problem. This algorithm is more complex but need not have access to protected group membership at test time. We identify new tradeoffs between fairness, accuracy, and privacy that emerge only when requiring all three properties, and show that these tradeoffs can be milder if group membership may be used at test time. We conclude with a brief experimental evaluation. The adoption of automated, data-driven decision making in an ever expanding range of applications has raised concerns about its potential unfairness towards certain social groups. In this context, a number of recent studies have focused on defining, detecting, and removing unfairness from data-driven decision systems. However, the existing notions of fairness, based on parity (equality) in treatment or outcomes for different social groups, tend to be quite stringent, limiting the overall decision making accuracy. In this paper, we draw inspiration from the fair-division and envy-freeness literature in economics and game theory and propose preference-based notions of fairness -- given the choice between various sets of decision treatments or outcomes, any group of users would collectively prefer its treatment or outcomes, regardless of the (dis)parity as compared to the other groups. Then, we introduce tractable proxies to design margin-based classifiers that satisfy these preference-based notions of fairness. Finally, we experiment with a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets and show that preference-based fairness allows for greater decision accuracy than parity-based fairness.