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.

Post-processing fairness with minimal changes

Fair and Optimal Classification via Post-Processing

Post-processing for Individual Fairness

Post-hoc Bias Scoring Is Optimal For Fair Classification

AdapFair: Ensuring Continuous Fairness for Machine Learning Operations

Differentially Private Post-Processing for Fair Regression

Simultaneous Improvement of ML Model Fairness and Performance by Identifying Bias in Data

Intra-Processing Methods for Debiasing Neural Networks

Model Debiasing via Gradient-based Explanation on Representation

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

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

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

How to be fair? A study of label and selection bias

Controlling Bias Exposure for Fair Interpretable Predictions

Removing biased data to improve fairness and accuracy

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

Normalise for Fairness: A Simple Normalisation Technique for Fairness in Regression Machine Learning Problems

FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-based Rebalancing of Protected Attributes

FairBalance: How to Achieve Equalized Odds With Data Pre-processing

Fairness And Performance In Harmony: Data Debiasing Is All You Need