Data-driven algorithms play a large role in decision making across a variety of industries. Increasingly, these algorithms are being used to make decisions that have significant ramifications for people's social and economic well-being, e.g. in sentencing, loan approval, and policing. Amid the proliferation of such systems there is a growing concern about their potential discriminatory impact. In particular, machine learning systems which are trained on biased data have the potential to learn and perpetuate those biases. A central challenge for practitioners is thus to determine whether their models display discriminatory bias. Here we present a case study in which we frame the issue of bias detection as a causal inference problem with observational data. We enumerate two main causes of bias, sampling bias and label bias, and we investigate the abilities of six different fairness metrics to detect each bias type. Based on these investigations, we propose a set of best practice guidelines to select the fairness metric that is most likely to detect bias if it is present. Additionally, we aim to identify the conditions in which certain fairness metrics may fail to detect bias and instead give practitioners a false belief that their biased model is making fair decisions.
The literature on fairness in machine learning is broadly categorized by three (often overlapping) goals: to quantify the degree of unfair bias present in data or model predictions @cite_14 @cite_11 @cite_20 @cite_1 @cite_18 , to remove unfair bias from data or model predictions @cite_14 @cite_23 , and to develop machine learning algorithms which include fairness constraints @cite_13 @cite_22 @cite_21 @cite_2 . A primary question for all three approaches is: How should fairness' be defined?''
@cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_22 @cite_21 @cite_1 @cite_23 @cite_2 @cite_13 @cite_20 @cite_11
2788241675 2768894107 2788284633 2779140735
Machine learning bias and fairness have recently emerged as key issues due to the pervasive deployment of data-driven decision making in a variety of sectors and services. It has often been argued that unfair classifications can be attributed to bias in training data, but previous attempts to ‘repair’ training data have led to limited success. To circumvent shortcomings prevalent in data repairing approaches, e.g. by weighting training samples of the sensitive group (e.g. gender, race, financial status) based on their misclassification error, we present a process that iteratively adapts training sample weights with a theoretically grounded model. This model addresses different kinds of bias to better achieve fairness objectives, such as trade-offs between accuracy and disparate impact elimination or disparate mistreatment elimination. We show that, compared to previous fairness-aware approaches on real-world and synthetic datasets, our methodology achieves better or similar trades-offs between accuracy and unfairness mitigation. 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. We introduce a novel technique to achieve non-discrimination in machine learning without sacrificing convexity and probabilistic interpretation. We also propose a new notion of fairness for machine learning called the weighted proportional fairness and show that our technique satisfies this subjective fairness criterion. The potential lack of fairness in the outputs of machine learning algorithms has recently gained attention both within the research community as well as in society more broadly. Surprisingly, there is no prior work developing tree-induction algorithms for building fair decision trees or fair random forests. These methods have widespread popularity as they are one of the few to be simultaneously interpretable, non-linear, and easy-to-use. In this paper we develop, to our knowledge, the first technique for the induction of fair decision trees. We show that our "Fair Forest" retains the benefits of the tree-based approach, while providing both greater accuracy and fairness than other alternatives, for both "group fairness" and "individual fairness.'" We also introduce new measures for fairness which are able to handle multinomial and continues attributes as well as regression problems, as opposed to binary attributes and labels only. Finally, we demonstrate a new, more robust evaluation procedure for algorithms that considers the dataset in its entirety rather than only a specific protected attribute.