Certifying and removing disparate impact

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, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, 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 algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of 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 analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data 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.Comment: Extended version of paper accepted at 2015 ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Minin

Control charts using minima instead of averages

Traditional control charts are commonly based on the averages of the inspected groups of observations. It turns out to be quite worthwhile to consider alternative approaches. In particular, a very good proposal is to use instead the group minimum for comparison to some suitable upper limit (and likewise the group maximum for comparison to a lower limit). The power of detection during Out-of-Control of the resulting chart is comparable to that of the standard Shewhart approach, while it offers much better protection to the effects of parameter estimation and/or nonnormality than the traditional methods

Negative Binomial charts for monitoring high-quality processes

Good control charts for high quality processes are often based on the number of successes between failures. Geometric charts are simplest in this respect, but slow in recognizing moderately increased failure rates p. Improvement can be achieved by waiting until r > 1 failures have occurred, i.e. by using negative binomial charts.In this paper we analyze such charts in some detail. On the basis of a fair comparison, we demonstrate how the optimal r is related to the degree of increase of p. As in practice p will usually be unknown, we also analyze the estimated version of the charts. In particular, simple corrections are derived to control the non-negligible effects of this estimation step