Achieving non-discrimination in prediction

Discrimination-aware classification is receiving an increasing attention in data science fields. The pre-process methods for constructing a discrimination-free classifier first remove discrimination from the training data, and then learn the classifier from the cleaned data. However, they lack a theoretical guarantee for the potential discrimination when the classifier is deployed for prediction. In this paper, we fill this gap by mathematically bounding the probability of the discrimination in prediction being within a given interval in terms of the training data and classifier. We adopt the causal model for modeling the data generation mechanism, and formally defining discrimination in population, in a dataset, and in prediction. We obtain two important theoretical results: (1) the discrimination in prediction can still exist even if the discrimination in the training data is completely removed; and (2) not all pre-process methods can ensure non-discrimination in prediction even though they can achieve non-discrimination in the modified training data. Based on the results, we develop a two-phase framework for constructing a discrimination-free classifier with a theoretical guarantee. The experiments demonstrate the theoretical results and show the effectiveness of our two-phase framework

Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: An Excursion Through the Lens of Causality

As virtually all aspects of our lives are increasingly impacted by algorithmic decision making systems, it is incumbent upon us as a society to ensure such systems do not become instruments of unfair discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. We consider the problem of determining whether the decisions made by such systems are discriminatory, through the lens of causal models. We introduce two definitions of group fairness grounded in causality: fair on average causal effect (FACE), and fair on average causal effect on the treated (FACT). We use the Rubin-Neyman potential outcomes framework for the analysis of cause-effect relationships to robustly estimate FACE and FACT. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach on synthetic data. Our analyses of two real-world data sets, the Adult income data set from the UCI repository (with gender as the protected attribute), and the NYC Stop and Frisk data set (with race as the protected attribute), show that the evidence of discrimination obtained by FACE and FACT, or lack thereof, is often in agreement with the findings from other studies. We further show that FACT, being somewhat more nuanced compared to FACE, can yield findings of discrimination that differ from those obtained using FACE.Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables.To appear in Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), 201

Autonomous Vehicles for All?

The traditional build-and-expand approach is not a viable solution to keep roadway traffic rolling safely, so technological solutions, such as Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), are favored. AVs have considerable potential to increase the carrying capacity of roads, ameliorate the chore of driving, improve safety, provide mobility for those who cannot drive, and help the environment. However, they also raise concerns over whether they are socially responsible, accounting for issues such as fairness, equity, and transparency. Regulatory bodies have focused on AV safety, cybersecurity, privacy, and legal liability issues, but have failed to adequately address social responsibility. Thus, existing AV developers do not have to embed social responsibility factors in their proprietary technology. Adverse bias may therefore occur in the development and deployment of AV technology. For instance, an artificial intelligence-based pedestrian detection application used in an AV may, in limited lighting conditions, be biased to detect pedestrians who belong to a particular racial demographic more efficiently compared to pedestrians from other racial demographics. Also, AV technologies tend to be costly, with a unique hardware and software setup which may be beyond the reach of lower-income people. In addition, data generated by AVs about their users may be misused by third parties such as corporations, criminals, or even foreign governments. AVs promise to dramatically impact labor markets, as many jobs that involve driving will be made redundant. We argue that the academic institutions, industry, and government agencies overseeing AV development and deployment must act proactively to ensure that AVs serve all and do not increase the digital divide in our society

Fair Inference On Outcomes

In this paper, we consider the problem of fair statistical inference involving outcome variables. Examples include classification and regression problems, and estimating treatment effects in randomized trials or observational data. The issue of fairness arises in such problems where some covariates or treatments are "sensitive," in the sense of having potential of creating discrimination. In this paper, we argue that the presence of discrimination can be formalized in a sensible way as the presence of an effect of a sensitive covariate on the outcome along certain causal pathways, a view which generalizes (Pearl, 2009). A fair outcome model can then be learned by solving a constrained optimization problem. We discuss a number of complications that arise in classical statistical inference due to this view and provide workarounds based on recent work in causal and semi-parametric inference

Fair CRISP-DM: Embedding Fairness in Machine Learning (ML) Development Life Cycle

With rapid adoption of machine learning (ML) technologies, the organizations are constantly exploring for efficient processes to develop such technologies. Cross-industry standard process for data mining (CRISP-DM) provides an industry and technology independent model for organizing ML projects’ development. However, the model lacks fairness concerns related to ML technologies. To address this important theoretical and practical gap in the literature, we propose a new model – Fair CRISP-DM which categorizes and presents the relevant fairness challenges in each phase of project development. We contribute to the literature on ML development and fairness. Specifically, ML researchers and practitioners can adopt our model to check and mitigate fairness concerns in each phase of ML project development