We tackle the problem of algorithmic fairness, where the goal is to avoid the unfairly influence of sensitive information, in the general context of regression with possible continuous sensitive attributes. We extend the framework of fair empirical risk minimization to this general scenario, covering in this way the whole standard supervised learning setting. Our generalized fairness measure reduces to well known notions of fairness available in literature. We derive learning guarantees for our method, that imply in particular its statistical consistency, both in terms of the risk and the fairness measure. We then specialize our approach to kernel methods and propose a convex fair estimator in that setting. We test the estimator on a commonly used benchmark dataset (Communities and Crime) and on a new dataset collected at the University of Genova, containing the information of the academic career of five thousand students. The latter dataset provides a challenging real case scenario of unfair behaviour of standard regression methods that benefits from our methodology. The experimental results show that our estimator is effective at mitigating the trade-off between accuracy and fairness requirements.
Algorithmic decision making process now affects many aspects of our lives. Standard tools for machine learning, such as classification and regression, are subject to the bias in data, and thus direct application of such off-the-shelf tools could lead to a specific group being unfairly discriminated. Removing sensitive attributes of data does not solve this problem because a can arise when non-sensitive attributes and sensitive attributes are correlated. Here, we study a fair machine learning algorithm that avoids such a disparate impact when making a decision. Inspired by the two-stage least squares method that is widely used in the field of economics, we propose a two-stage algorithm that removes bias in the training data. The proposed algorithm is conceptually simple. Unlike most of existing fair algorithms that are designed for classification tasks, the proposed method is able to (i) deal with regression tasks, (ii) combine explanatory attributes to remove reverse discrimination, and (iii) deal with numerical sensitive attributes. The performance and fairness of the proposed algorithm are evaluated in simulations with synthetic and real-world datasets. 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. New social and economic activities massively exploit big data and machine learning algorithms to do inference on people’s lives. Applications include automatic curricula evaluation, wage determination, and risk assessment for credits and loans. Recently, many governments and institutions have raised concerns about the lack of fairness, equity and ethics in machine learning to treat these problems. It has been shown that not including sensitive features that bias fairness, such as gender or race, is not enough to mitigate the discrimination when other related features are included. Instead, including fairness in the objective function has been shown to be more efficient. 