Abstract:We develop a solution framework for mitigating algorithmic bias in machine-learning classifiers. We consider an interactive problem setting where Alice (e.g., the firm) proposes to use data records to build a target classifier, while Bob (e.g., the regulator) builds a bias-proof classifier to protect sensitive dimensions from being discriminated on. Specific measures of algorithm fairness and a priori definition of bias terms are exempted in this propose and review scenario. Our solution relies on the idea that the discriminating strength (i.e., the bias) in Alice's target classifier corresponds to the separating capability (i.e., the signal) of Bob's discrimination-proof classifier, thus the goal is to reduce the separability of Bob's classifier while preserving the separability of Alice's classifier, obviating the fairness-utility tradeoff by separating two classifications. We measure the pairwise distance between data attributes from indicating their differences in contributing to classifier's separability. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) on the distance matrix helps establish the mapping between attributes and inferred bias sources. This bias-concentration information helps establish a ranking on attributes that suggests their bias-proneness. We mitigate bias at Bob's classifier (i.e., limit the classifier's separability) by searching for appropriate transformation of data records at bias-prone attributes. We consider polynomial/re-binning transformation at numerical/categorical data attributes, greedily suppressing attributes' maximum bias concentration below a threshold. The framework is demonstrated with a detailed case study at a well-known classification dataset. We achieve good bias-mitigation performance at 10/12 machine classifiers; results are robust across multiple design choices and engineering options. We further showcase the framework's performance at a larger dataset having >100 attributes. Results document a clear example where classification's fairness and classifier's utility under certain definitions are both enhanced.

Does mitigating ML's impact disparity require treatment disparity?

Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment

Privacy at a Price: Exploring its Dual Impact on AI Fairness

Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions

Fair Bayes-Optimal Classifiers Under Predictive Parity

Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

Towards A Holistic View of Bias in Machine Learning: Bridging Algorithmic Fairness and Imbalanced Learning

'Propose and Review': Interactive Bias Mitigation for Machine Classifiers

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Bayes-Optimal Fair Classification with Linear Disparity Constraints via Pre-, In-, and Post-processing

The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by default

Fairness-aware machine learning: a perspective

Connecting Fairness in Machine Learning with Public Health Equity

Towards Return Parity in Markov Decision Processes

Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action via Counterfactual Predictions

The Flawed Foundations of Fair Machine Learning

Mitigating Disparate Impact on Model Accuracy in Differentially Private Learning.

Fairness in Machine Learning with Tractable Models

Beyond Demographic Parity: Redefining Equal Treatment

Is Fairness Only Metric Deep? Evaluating and Addressing Subgroup Gaps in Deep Metric Learning

When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness