Abstract:Problem definition: Data analytics models and machine learning algorithms are increasingly deployed to support consequential decision-making processes, from deciding which applicants will receive job offers and loans to university enrollments and medical interventions. However, recent studies show these models may unintentionally amplify human bias and yield significant unfavorable decisions to specific groups. Methodology/results: We propose a distributionally robust classification model with a fairness constraint that encourages the classifier to be fair in the equality of opportunity criterion. We use a type-[Formula: see text] Wasserstein ambiguity set centered at the empirical distribution to represent distributional uncertainty and derive a conservative reformulation for the worst-case equal opportunity unfairness measure. We show that the model is equivalent to a mixed binary conic optimization problem, which standard off-the-shelf solvers can solve. We propose a convex, hinge-loss-based model for large problem instances whose reformulation does not incur binary variables to improve scalability. Moreover, we also consider the distributionally robust learning problem with a generic ground transportation cost to hedge against the label and sensitive attribute uncertainties. We numerically examine the performance of our proposed models on five real-world data sets related to individual analysis. Compared with the state-of-the-art methods, our proposed approaches significantly improve fairness with negligible loss of predictive accuracy in the testing data set. Managerial implications: Our paper raises awareness that bias may arise when predictive models are used in service and operations. It generally comes from human bias, for example, imbalanced data collection or low sample sizes, and is further amplified by algorithms. Incorporating fairness constraints and the distributionally robust optimization (DRO) scheme is a powerful way to alleviate algorithmic biases. Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [Grants 2342505 and 2343869] and the Chinese University of Hong Kong [Grant 4055191]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0230 .

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

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

Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Survey

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

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

Whither Bias Goes, I Will Go: An Integrative, Systematic Review of Algorithmic Bias Mitigation

Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?

Controlling Bias Exposure for Fair Interpretable Predictions

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

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

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

Adapting Static Fairness to Sequential Decision-Making: Bias Mitigation Strategies towards Equal Long-term Benefit Rate

Does Machine Bring in Extra Bias in Learning? Approximating Fairness in Models Promptly

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

Explaining Knock-on Effects of Bias Mitigation

Balancing Fairness and Accuracy in Data-Restricted Binary Classification

Minimax Optimal Fair Classification with Bounded Demographic Disparity

Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?

AIM: Attributing, Interpreting, Mitigating Data Unfairness

Wasserstein Robust Classification with Fairness Constraints

Fix Fairness, Don't Ruin Accuracy: Performance Aware Fairness Repair using AutoML