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.
Our approach differs from causal approaches to fairness @cite_16 @cite_21 @cite_14 which are more concerned with the causal mechanism of the real world that generated a potentially unfair decision, whereas we study the effect of sensitive information on a known classifier.
@cite_14 @cite_16 @cite_21
2750585749 2963453196
Machine learning is now being used to make crucial decisions about people's lives. For nearly all of these decisions there is a risk that individuals of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other subpopulation are unfairly discriminated against. Our recent method has demonstrated how to use techniques from counterfactual inference to make predictions fair across different subpopulations. This method requires that one provides the causal model that generated the data at hand. In general, validating all causal implications of the model is not possible without further assumptions. Hence, it is desirable to integrate competing causal models to provide counterfactually fair decisions, regardless of which causal "world" is the correct one. In this paper, we show how it is possible to make predictions that are approximately fair with respect to multiple possible causal models at once, thus mitigating the problem of exact causal specification. We frame the goal of learning a fair classifier as an optimization problem with fairness constraints entailed by competing causal explanations. We show how this optimization problem can be efficiently solved using gradient-based methods. We demonstrate the flexibility of our model on two real-world fair classification problems. We show that our model can seamlessly balance fairness in multiple worlds with prediction accuracy. Recent work on fairness in machine learning has focused on various statistical discrimination criteria and how they trade off. Most of these criteria are observational: They depend only on the joint distribution of predictor, protected attribute, features, and outcome. While convenient to work with, observational criteria have severe inherent limitations that prevent them from resolving matters of fairness conclusively. Going beyond observational criteria, we frame the problem of discrimination based on protected attributes in the language of causal reasoning. This viewpoint shifts attention from "What is the right fairness criterion?" to "What do we want to assume about our model of the causal data generating process?" Through the lens of causality, we make several contributions. First, we crisply articulate why and when observational criteria fail, thus formalizing what was before a matter of opinion. Second, our approach exposes previously ignored subtleties and why they are fundamental to the problem. Finally, we put forward natural causal non-discrimination criteria and develop algorithms that satisfy them.