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.
The goal of minimizing misclassification error on a training set is often just one of several real-world goals that might be defined on different datasets. For example, one may require a classifier to also make positive predictions at some specified rate for some subpopulation (fairness), or to achieve a specified empirical recall. Other real-world goals include reducing churn with respect to a previously deployed model, or stabilizing online training. In this paper we propose handling multiple goals on multiple datasets by training with dataset constraints, using the ramp penalty to accurately quantify costs, and present an efficient algorithm to approximately optimize the resulting non-convex constrained optimization problem. Experiments on both benchmark and real-world industry datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. In the context of civil rights law, discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of people based on membership to a category or a minority, without regard to individual merit. Rules extracted from databases by data mining techniques, such as classification or association rules, when used for decision tasks such as benefit or credit approval, can be discriminatory in the above sense. In this paper, the notion of discriminatory classification rules is introduced and studied. Providing a guarantee of non-discrimination is shown to be a non trivial task. A naive approach, like taking away all discriminatory attributes, is shown to be not enough when other background knowledge is available. Our approach leads to a precise formulation of the redlining problem along with a formal result relating discriminatory rules with apparently safe ones by means of background knowledge. An empirical assessment of the results on the German credit dataset is also provided. 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. With the support of the legally-grounded methodology of situation testing, we tackle the problems of discrimination discovery and prevention from a dataset of historical decisions by adopting a variant of k-NN classification. A tuple is labeled as discriminated if we can observe a significant difference of treatment among its neighbors belonging to a protected-by-law group and its neighbors not belonging to it. Discrimination discovery boils down to extracting a classification model from the labeled tuples. Discrimination prevention is tackled by changing the decision value for tuples labeled as discriminated before training a classifier. The approach of this paper overcomes legal weaknesses and technical limitations of existing proposals. Most of the decisions in the today's knowledge society are taken on the basis of historical data by extracting models, patterns, profiles, and rules of human behavior in support of (automated) decision making. There is then the need of developing models, methods and technologies for modelling the processes of discrimination analysis in order to discover and prevent discrimination phenomena. In this respect, discrimination analysis from data should build over the large body of existing legal and economic studies. This paper intends to provide a multi-disciplinary survey of the literature on discrimination data analysis, including methods for data collection, empirical studies, controlled experiments, statistical evidence, and their legal requirements and grounds. We cover the following mainstream research lines: labour economic models, (quasi-)experimental approaches such as auditing and controlled experiments, profiling-based approaches such as racial profiling and credit markets, and the recently blooming research on knowledge discovery approaches. We study fairness in classification, where individuals are classified, e.g., admitted to a university, and the goal is to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their membership in some group, while maintaining utility for the classifier (the university). The main conceptual contribution of this paper is a framework for fair classification comprising (1) a (hypothetical) task-specific metric for determining the degree to which individuals are similar with respect to the classification task at hand; (2) an algorithm for maximizing utility subject to the fairness constraint, that similar individuals are treated similarly. We also present an adaptation of our approach to achieve the complementary goal of "fair affirmative action," which guarantees statistical parity (i.e., the demographics of the set of individuals receiving any classification are the same as the demographics of the underlying population), while treating similar individuals as similarly as possible. Finally, we discuss the relationship of fairness to privacy: when fairness implies privacy, and how tools developed in the context of differential privacy may be applied to fairness. 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. We propose a learning algorithm for fair classification that achieves both group fairness (the proportion of members in a protected group receiving positive classification is identical to the proportion in the population as a whole), and individual fairness (similar individuals should be treated similarly). We formulate fairness as an optimization problem of finding a good representation of the data with two competing goals: to encode the data as well as possible, while simultaneously obfuscating any information about membership in the protected group. We show positive results of our algorithm relative to other known techniques, on three datasets. Moreover, we demonstrate several advantages to our approach. First, our intermediate representation can be used for other classification tasks (i.e., transfer learning is possible); secondly, we take a step toward learning a distance metric which can find important dimensions of the data for classification. The concept of classification without discrimination is a new area of research. (Kamiran & Calders, ) introduced the idea of Classification with No Discrimination (CND)and proposed a solution based on “massaging” the data to remove the discrimination from it with the least possible changes. In this paper, we propose a new solution to the CND problem by introducing a sampling scheme for making the data discrimination free instead of relabeling the dataset. On the resulting non-discriminatory dataset we then learn a classifier. This new method is not only less intrusive as compared to the “massaging” but also outperforms the “reweighing” approach of (, 2009). The proposed method has been implemented and experimental results on the Census Income dataset show promising results: in all experiments our method performs onpar with the state-of-the art non-discriminatory techniques. 