Effective complements to human judgment, artificial intelligence techniques have started to aid human decisions in complicated social problems across the world. In the context of United States for instance, automated ML DL classification models offer complements to human decisions in determining Medicaid eligibility. However, given the limitations in ML DL model design, these algorithms may fail to leverage various factors for decision making, resulting in improper decisions that allocate resources to individuals who may not be in the most need. In view of such an issue, we propose in this paper the method of , based on the legal doctrine of , to improve the fairness of regressive classifiers. Experiments on American Community Survey dataset demonstrate that our method could be easily adapted to a variety of regressive classification models to boost their fairness in deciding Medicaid Eligibility, while maintaining high levels of classification accuracy.
The second group has centered on algorithms to achieve fairness. Along the route of disparate impact, @cite_1 has described algorithms to spot the presence of disparate impact through Support Vector Machine, while @cite_0 applied the notion of disparate impact to design an algorithm that achieves balance in unsupervised clustering algorithms. @cite_0 also introduces the notion of , which we have used in our paper.
@cite_0 @cite_1
2963992001 2952092676 2014352947 2947175317
We study the question of fair clustering under the disparate impact doctrine, where each protected class must have approximately equal representation in every cluster. We formulate the fair clustering problem under both the k-center and the k-median objectives, and show that even with two protected classes the problem is challenging, as the optimum solution can violate common conventions---for instance a point may no longer be assigned to its nearest cluster center! En route we introduce the concept of fairlets, which are minimal sets that satisfy fair representation while approximately preserving the clustering objective. We show that any fair clustering problem can be decomposed into first finding good fairlets, and then using existing machinery for traditional clustering algorithms. While finding good fairlets can be NP-hard, we proceed to obtain efficient approximation algorithms based on minimum cost flow. We empirically demonstrate the by quantifying the value of fair clustering on real-world datasets with sensitive attributes. 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. 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.