Proxy Fairness

We consider the problem of improving fairness when one lacks access to a dataset labeled with protected groups, making it difficult to take advantage of strategies that can improve fairness but require protected group labels, either at training or runtime. To address this, we investigate improving fairness metrics for proxy groups, and test whether doing so results in improved fairness for the true sensitive groups. Results on benchmark and real-world datasets demonstrate that such a proxy fairness strategy can work well in practice. However, we caution that the effectiveness likely depends on the choice of fairness metric, as well as how aligned the proxy groups are with the true protected groups in terms of the constrained model parameters.

[1]  Min Zhang,et al.  Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017 , 2017, ArXiv.

[2]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  A Methodology for Direct and Indirect Discrimination Prevention in Data Mining , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[3]  Jun Sakuma,et al.  Fairness-Aware Classifier with Prejudice Remover Regularizer , 2012, ECML/PKDD.

[4]  Toon Calders,et al.  Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification , 2010, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

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

[6]  Benjamin Fish,et al.  A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy , 2016, SDM.

[7]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , 2016, NIPS.

[8]  Matt J. Kusner,et al.  When Worlds Collide: Integrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[9]  A. van de Rijt,et al.  The Matthew effect in science funding , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Maya R. Gupta,et al.  Fast and Flexible Monotonic Functions with Ensembles of Lattices , 2016, NIPS.

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

[12]  Heinz H. Bauschke,et al.  On Projection Algorithms for Solving Convex Feasibility Problems , 1996, SIAM Rev..

[13]  Maya R. Gupta,et al.  Monotonic Calibrated Interpolated Look-Up Tables , 2015, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[14]  E. Thorndike.  A constant error in psychological ratings. , 1920 .

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

[16]  Maya R. Gupta,et al.  Satisfying Real-world Goals with Dataset Constraints , 2016, NIPS.

[17]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[18]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning , 2017, NIPS.

[19]  P. Bickel,et al.  Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley , 1975, Science.