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.

Interventions Against Machine-Assisted Statistical Discrimination

Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions

Fairness-aware machine learning: a perspective

Towards Fair Machine Learning Software: Understanding and Addressing Model Bias Through Counterfactual Thinking

On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment

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

A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifiers

Unbiasing on the Fly: Explanation-Guided Human Oversight of Machine Learning System Decisions

My Model is Unfair, Do People Even Care? Visual Design Affects Trust and Perceived Bias in Machine Learning

A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning

Modeling Techniques for Machine Learning Fairness: A Survey

Rationally Inattentive Statistical Discrimination: Arrow Meets Phelps

State of the Art in Fair ML: From Moral Philosophy and Legislation to Fair Classifiers

Statistical inference for individual fairness

Understanding Bias in Machine Learning

Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Survey

A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challenges

Counterfactual Fairness through Transforming Data Orthogonal to Bias

Mind the Gap: A Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-Making

Visual Analysis of Discrimination in Machine Learning