text: Developing classification algorithms that are fair with respect to sensitive attributes of the data is an important problem due to the increased deployment of classification algorithms in societ al contexts. Several recent works have focused on studying classification with respect to specific fairness metrics, modeled the corresponding fair classification problem as constrained optimization problems, and developed tailored algorithms to solve them. Despite this, there still remain important metrics for which there are no fair classifiers with theoretical guarantees; primarily because the resulting optimization problem is non-convex. The main contribution of this paper is a meta-algorithm for classification that can take as input a general class of fairness constraints with respect to multiple non-disjoint and multi-valued sensitive attributes, and which comes with provable guarantees. In particular, our algorithm can handle non-convex "linear fractional" constraints (which includes fairness constraints such as predictive parity) for which no prior algorithm was known. Key to our results is an algorithm for a family of classification problems with convex constraints along with a reduction from classification problems with linear fractional constraints to this family. Empirically, we observe that our algorithm is fast, can achieve near-perfect fairness with respect to various fairness metrics, and the loss in accuracy due to the imposed fairness constraints is often small.
  @cite_37: 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.
  @cite_8: Classification models usually make predictions on the basis of training data. If the training data is biased towards certain groups or classes of objects, e.g., there is racial discrimination towards black people, the learned model will also show discriminatory behavior towards that particular community. This partial attitude of the learned model may lead to biased outcomes when labeling future unlabeled data objects. Often, however, impartial classification results are desired or even required by law for future data objects in spite of having biased training data. In this paper, we tackle this problem by introducing a new classification scheme for learning unbiased models on biased training data. Our method is based on massaging the dataset by making the least intrusive modifications which lead to an unbiased dataset. On this modified dataset we then learn a non-discriminating classifier. The proposed method has been implemented and experimental results on a credit approval dataset show promising results: in all experiments our method is able to reduce the prejudicial behavior for future classification significantly without loosing too much predictive accuracy.
  @cite_41: 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.
  @cite_29: Recently, the following Discrimination-Aware Classification Problem was introduced: Suppose we are given training data that exhibit unlawful discrimination; e.g., toward sensitive attributes such as gender or ethnicity. The task is to learn a classifier that optimizes accuracy, but does not have this discrimination in its predictions on test data. This problem is relevant in many settings, such as when the data are generated by a biased decision process or when the sensitive attribute serves as a proxy for unobserved features. In this paper, we concentrate on the case with only one binary sensitive attribute and a two-class classification problem. We first study the theoretically optimal trade-off between accuracy and non-discrimination for pure classifiers. Then, we look at algorithmic solutions that preprocess the data to remove discrimination before a classifier is learned. We survey and extend our existing data preprocessing techniques, being suppression of the sensitive attribute, massaging the dataset by changing class labels, and reweighing or resampling the data to remove discrimination without relabeling instances. These preprocessing techniques have been implemented in a modified version of Weka and we present the results of experiments on real-life data.
  @cite_24: Machine learning bias and fairness have recently emerged as key issues due to the pervasive deployment of data-driven decision making in a variety of sectors and services. It has often been argued that unfair classifications can be attributed to bias in training data, but previous attempts to ‘repair’ training data have led to limited success. To circumvent shortcomings prevalent in data repairing approaches, e.g. by weighting training samples of the sensitive group (e.g. gender, race, financial status) based on their misclassification error, we present a process that iteratively adapts training sample weights with a theoretically grounded model. This model addresses different kinds of bias to better achieve fairness objectives, such as trade-offs between accuracy and disparate impact elimination or disparate mistreatment elimination. We show that, compared to previous fairness-aware approaches on real-world and synthetic datasets, our methodology achieves better or similar trades-offs between accuracy and unfairness mitigation.
  @cite_40: 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.
summary: Another line of research is to pre-process on the training data and achieve an unbiased dataset for learning, e.g., @cite_8 @cite_37 @cite_29 @cite_40 @cite_41 @cite_24 . This approach is quite different from ours since we focus on learning classifiers and investigating the accuracy-fairness tradeoff from the feeding dataset.