Model-based and actual independence for fairness-aware classification

The goal of fairness-aware classification is to categorize data while taking into account potential issues of fairness, discrimination, neutrality, and/or independence. For example, when applying data mining technologies to university admissions, admission criteria must be non-discriminatory and fair with regard to sensitive features, such as gender or race. In this context, such fairness can be formalized as statistical independence between classification results and sensitive features. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze this formal fairness in order to achieve better trade-offs between fairness and prediction accuracy, which is important for applying fairness-aware classifiers in practical use. We focus on a fairness-aware classifier, Calders and Verwer’s two-naive-Bayes (CV2NB) method, which has been shown to be superior to other classifiers in terms of fairness. We hypothesize that this superiority is due to the difference in types of independence. That is, because CV2NB achieves actual independence, rather than satisfying model-based independence like the other classifiers, it can account for model bias and a deterministic decision rule. We empirically validate this hypothesis by modifying two fairness-aware classifiers, a prejudice remover method and a reject option-based classification (ROC) method, so as to satisfy actual independence. The fairness of these two modified methods was drastically improved, showing the importance of maintaining actual independence, rather than model-based independence. We additionally extend an approach adopted in the ROC method so as to make it applicable to classifiers other than those with generative models, such as SVMs

Beyond Personalization: Research Directions in Multistakeholder Recommendation

Recommender systems are personalized information access applications; they are ubiquitous in today's online environment, and effective at finding items that meet user needs and tastes. As the reach of recommender systems has extended, it has become apparent that the single-minded focus on the user common to academic research has obscured other important aspects of recommendation outcomes. Properties such as fairness, balance, profitability, and reciprocity are not captured by typical metrics for recommender system evaluation. The concept of multistakeholder recommendation has emerged as a unifying framework for describing and understanding recommendation settings where the end user is not the sole focus. This article describes the origins of multistakeholder recommendation, and the landscape of system designs. It provides illustrative examples of current research, as well as outlining open questions and research directions for the field.Comment: 64 page

Fairness Behind a Veil of Ignorance: A Welfare Analysis for Automated Decision Making

We draw attention to an important, yet largely overlooked aspect of evaluating fairness for automated decision making systems---namely risk and welfare considerations. Our proposed family of measures corresponds to the long-established formulations of cardinal social welfare in economics, and is justified by the Rawlsian conception of fairness behind a veil of ignorance. The convex formulation of our welfare-based measures of fairness allows us to integrate them as a constraint into any convex loss minimization pipeline. Our empirical analysis reveals interesting trade-offs between our proposal and (a) prediction accuracy, (b) group discrimination, and (c) Dwork et al.'s notion of individual fairness. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, our work provides both heuristic justification and empirical evidence suggesting that a lower-bound on our measures often leads to bounded inequality in algorithmic outcomes; hence presenting the first computationally feasible mechanism for bounding individual-level inequality.Comment: Conference: Thirty-second Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018

From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking

Objectives Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. Method An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. Results Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16). Conclusion This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-settin