A Geometric Solution to Fair Representations

To reduce human error and prejudice, many high-stakes decisions have been turned over to machine algorithms. However, recent research suggests that this does not remove discrimination, and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. While algorithms have been developed to improve fairness, they typically face at least one of three shortcomings: they are not interpretable, their prediction quality deteriorates quickly compared to unbiased equivalents, and %the methodology cannot easily extend other algorithms they are not easily transferable across models% (e.g., methods to reduce bias in random forests cannot be extended to neural networks) . To address these shortcomings, we propose a geometric method that removes correlations between data and any number of protected variables. Further, we can control the strength of debiasing through an adjustable parameter to address the trade-off between prediction quality and fairness. The resulting features are interpretable and can be used with many popular models, such as linear regression, random forest, and multilayer perceptrons. The resulting predictions are found to be more accurate and fair compared to several state-of-the-art fair AI algorithms across a variety of benchmark datasets. Our work shows that debiasing data is a simple and effective solution toward improving fairness.

[1]  Cory Maloney Mathematics as a Tool of Manipulation in Modern Society. Review of the book by Cathy O’Neil «Weapons of Math Destruction. How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy» , 2017 .

[2]  Anuj K. Shah,et al.  Some Consequences of Having Too Little , 2012, Science.

[3]  Chih-Jen Lin,et al.  LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines , 2011, TIST.

[4]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Multi-column deep neural networks for image classification , 2012, 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[5]  Hany Farid,et al.  The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism , 2018, Science Advances.

[6]  Yu Zhang,et al.  Deep Neural Networks for High Dimension, Low Sample Size Data , 2017, IJCAI.

[7]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification , 2015, AISTATS.

[8]  Stefan Bauer,et al.  On the Fairness of Disentangled Representations , 2019, NeurIPS.

[9]  H. Karch,et al.  Endothelial progenitor cells accelerate endothelial regeneration in an in vitro model of Shigatoxin-2a-induced injury via soluble growth factors. , 2018, American journal of physiology. Renal physiology.

[10]  Seth Neel,et al.  A Convex Framework for Fair Regression , 2017, ArXiv.

[11]  C. V. D. Malsburg,et al.  Frank Rosenblatt: Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms , 1986 .

[12]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Bias and error in human judgment , 1983 .

[13]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores , 2016, ITCS.

[14]  Yoav Freund,et al.  A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting , 1995, EuroCOLT.

[15]  Matt Olfat,et al.  Convex Formulations for Fair Principal Component Analysis , 2018, AAAI.

[16]  Max Welling,et al.  The Variational Fair Autoencoder , 2015, ICLR.

[17]  S. Danziger,et al.  Extraneous factors in judicial decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Mohit Singh,et al.  The Price of Fair PCA: One Extra Dimension , 2018, NeurIPS.

[19]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Fairness through awareness , 2011, ITCS '12.

[20]  Abraham J. Wyner,et al.  Modern Neural Networks Generalize on Small Data Sets , 2018, NeurIPS.

[21]  Ludovic Saint-Bauzel,et al.  A Reactive Robotized Interface for Lower Limb Rehabilitation: Clinical Results , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[22]  Julia Rubin,et al.  Fairness Definitions Explained , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare).

[23]  Toon Calders,et al.  Discrimination Aware Decision Tree Learning , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[24]  Premkumar Natarajan,et al.  Unsupervised Adversarial Invariance , 2018, NeurIPS.

[25]  Sendhil Mullainathan,et al.  Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function , 2013, Science.

[26]  Frank Rosenblatt,et al.  PRINCIPLES OF NEURODYNAMICS. PERCEPTRONS AND THE THEORY OF BRAIN MECHANISMS , 1963 .

[27]  E. Pierson,et al.  A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States , 2017, 1706.05678.

[28]  David Sontag,et al.  Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory? , 2018, NeurIPS.

[29]  Graham Neubig,et al.  Controllable Invariance through Adversarial Feature Learning , 2017, NIPS.

[30]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment , 2016, WWW.

[31]  Rob Brekelmans,et al.  Invariant Representations without Adversarial Training , 2018, NeurIPS.

[32]  Kristian Lum,et al.  An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction , 2017, The Annals of Applied Statistics.

[33]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Learning Fair Representations , 2013, ICML.

[34]  Ben Hutchinson,et al.  50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning , 2018, FAT.

[35]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learning , 2018, ArXiv.

[36]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classification , 2017, NIPS.

[37]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[38]  Tony Doyle,et al.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Inf. Soc..

[39]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments , 2016, Big Data.