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.
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. 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.   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.   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. Nowadays, many decisions are made using predictive models built on historical data.Predictive models may systematically discriminate groups of people even if the computing process is fair and well-intentioned. Discrimination-aware data mining studies how to make predictive models free from discrimination, when historical data, on which they are built, may be biased, incomplete, or even contain past discriminatory decisions. Discrimination refers to disadvantageous treatment of a person based on belonging to a category rather than on individual merit. In this survey we review and organize various discrimination measures that have been used for measuring discrimination in data, as well as in evaluating performance of discrimination-aware predictive models. We also discuss related measures from other disciplines, which have not been used for measuring discrimination, but potentially could be suitable for this purpose. We computationally analyze properties of selected measures. We also review and discuss measuring procedures, and present recommendations for practitioners. The primary target audience is data mining, machine learning, pattern recognition, statistical modeling researchers developing new methods for non-discriminatory predictive modeling. In addition, practitioners and policy makers would use the survey for diagnosing potential discrimination by predictive models. 