Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning

Recent work on fairness in machine learning has focused on various statistical discrimination criteria and how they trade off. Most of these criteria are observational: They depend only on the joint distribution of predictor, protected attribute, features, and outcome. While convenient to work with, observational criteria have severe inherent limitations that prevent them from resolving matters of fairness conclusively. Going beyond observational criteria, we frame the problem of discrimination based on protected attributes in the language of causal reasoning. This viewpoint shifts attention from "What is the right fairness criterion?" to "What do we want to assume about the causal data generating process?" Through the lens of causality, we make several contributions. First, we crisply articulate why and when observational criteria fail, thus formalizing what was before a matter of opinion. Second, our approach exposes previously ignored subtleties and why they are fundamental to the problem. Finally, we put forward natural causal non-discrimination criteria and develop algorithms that satisfy them.

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

[2]  Francesco Bonchi,et al.  Exposing the probabilistic causal structure of discrimination , 2015, International Journal of Data Science and Analytics.

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

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

[5]  Carlos Eduardo Scheidegger,et al.  Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact , 2014, KDD.

[6]  Faisal Kamiran,et al.  Quantifying explainable discrimination and removing illegal discrimination in automated decision making , 2012, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[7]  Joris M. Mooij,et al.  Type-II Errors of Independence Tests Can Lead to Arbitrarily Large Errors in Estimated Causal Effects: An Illustrative Example , 2014, CI@UAI.

[8]  Ilya Shpitser,et al.  Fair Inference on Outcomes , 2017, AAAI.

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

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

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

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

[13]  Matt J. Kusner,et al.  Counterfactual Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[14]  M. Kearns,et al.  Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art , 2017, Sociological Methods & Research.

[15]  Lu Zhang,et al.  Anti-discrimination learning: a causal modeling-based framework , 2017, International Journal of Data Science and Analytics.

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

[17]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[18]  J. Angrist,et al.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 15, Number 4—Fall 2001—Pages 69–85 Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments , 2022 .

[19]  Amos J. Storkey,et al.  Censoring Representations with an Adversary , 2015, ICLR.

[20]  T. VanderWeele,et al.  On the causal interpretation of race in regressions adjusting for confounding and mediating variables. , 2014, Epidemiology.

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

[22]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  On the (im)possibility of fairness , 2016, ArXiv.