3,940 research outputs found
Learning Fair Naive Bayes Classifiers by Discovering and Eliminating Discrimination Patterns
As machine learning is increasingly used to make real-world decisions, recent
research efforts aim to define and ensure fairness in algorithmic decision
making. Existing methods often assume a fixed set of observable features to
define individuals, but lack a discussion of certain features not being
observed at test time. In this paper, we study fairness of naive Bayes
classifiers, which allow partial observations. In particular, we introduce the
notion of a discrimination pattern, which refers to an individual receiving
different classifications depending on whether some sensitive attributes were
observed. Then a model is considered fair if it has no such pattern. We propose
an algorithm to discover and mine for discrimination patterns in a naive Bayes
classifier, and show how to learn maximum likelihood parameters subject to
these fairness constraints. Our approach iteratively discovers and eliminates
discrimination patterns until a fair model is learned. An empirical evaluation
on three real-world datasets demonstrates that we can remove exponentially many
discrimination patterns by only adding a small fraction of them as constraints
A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy
We study three classical machine learning algorithms in the context of
algorithmic fairness: adaptive boosting, support vector machines, and logistic
regression. Our goal is to maintain the high accuracy of these learning
algorithms while reducing the degree to which they discriminate against
individuals because of their membership in a protected group.
Our first contribution is a method for achieving fairness by shifting the
decision boundary for the protected group. The method is based on the theory of
margins for boosting. Our method performs comparably to or outperforms previous
algorithms in the fairness literature in terms of accuracy and low
discrimination, while simultaneously allowing for a fast and transparent
quantification of the trade-off between bias and error.
Our second contribution addresses the shortcomings of the bias-error
trade-off studied in most of the algorithmic fairness literature. We
demonstrate that even hopelessly naive modifications of a biased algorithm,
which cannot be reasonably said to be fair, can still achieve low bias and high
accuracy. To help to distinguish between these naive algorithms and more
sensible algorithms we propose a new measure of fairness, called resilience to
random bias (RRB). We demonstrate that RRB distinguishes well between our naive
and sensible fairness algorithms. RRB together with bias and accuracy provides
a more complete picture of the fairness of an algorithm
Advancing Subgroup Fairness via Sleeping Experts
We study methods for improving fairness to subgroups in settings with overlapping populations and sequential predictions. Classical notions of fairness focus on the balance of some property across different populations. However, in many applications the goal of the different groups is not to be predicted equally but rather to be predicted well. We demonstrate that the task of satisfying this guarantee for multiple overlapping groups is not straightforward and show that for the simple objective of unweighted average of false negative and false positive rate, satisfying this for overlapping populations can be statistically impossible even when we are provided predictors that perform well separately on each subgroup. On the positive side, we show that when individuals are equally important to the different groups they belong to, this goal is achievable; to do so, we draw a connection to the sleeping experts literature in online learning. Motivated by the one-sided feedback in natural settings of interest, we extend our results to such a feedback model. We also provide a game-theoretic interpretation of our results, examining the incentives of participants to join the system and to provide the system full information about predictors they may possess. We end with several interesting open problems concerning the strength of guarantees that can be achieved in a computationally efficient manner
- …