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.

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

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

Minimax Optimal Fair Classification with Bounded Demographic Disparity

Bayes-Optimal Classifiers under Group Fairness

Fair Bayes-Optimal Classifiers Under Predictive Parity

Fair and Optimal Classification via Post-Processing

Fair Classification via Unconstrained Optimization

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

Post-hoc Bias Scoring Is Optimal For Fair Classification

Fair Classification and Social Welfare

Welfare and Distributional Impacts of Fair Classification

Leveling Down in Computer Vision: Pareto Inefficiencies in Fair Deep Classifiers

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

Addressing Strategic Manipulation Disparities in Fair Classification

Estimating and Implementing Conventional Fairness Metrics With Probabilistic Protected Features

On the (In)Compatibility between Group Fairness and Individual Fairness

Optimisation Strategies for Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning: With and Without Demographics

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

Learning Fair Classifiers via Min-Max F-divergence Regularization