Fairness (machine learning)


In machine learning, a given algorithm is said to be fair, or to have fairness, if its results are independent of given variables, especially those considered sensitive, such as the traits of individuals which should not correlate with outcome.

Context

Research about fairness in machine learning is a relatively recent topic. Most of the articles about it have been written in the last three years. Some of the most important facts in this topic are the following:
The algorithms used for assuring fairness are still being improved. However, the main progress in this area is that some big corporations are realizing the impact that reducing algorithmic bias could have on society.

Fairness criteria in classification problemsSolon Barocas; Moritz Hardt; Arvind Narayanan, http://www.fairmlbook.org ''Fairness and Machine Learning''. Retrieved 15 December 2019.

In classification problems, an algorithm learns a function to predict a discrete characteristic, the target variable, from known characteristics. We model as a discrete random variable which encodes some characteristics contained or implicitly encoded in that we consider as sensitive characteristics. We finally denote by the prediction of the classifier.
Now let us define three main criteria to evaluate if a given classifier is fair, that is, if its predictions are not influenced by some of these sensitive variables.

Independence

We say the random variables satisfy independence if the sensitive characteristics are statistically independent to the prediction, and we write.
We can also express this notion with the following formula:
This means that the probability of being classified by the algorithm in each of the groups is equal for two individuals with different sensitive characteristics.
Yet another equivalent expression for independence can be given using the concept of mutual information between random variables, defined as
In this formula, of the random variable. Then satisfy independence if.
A possible relaxation of the independence nce definition include introducing a positive slack and is given by the formula:
Finally, another possible relaxation is to require.

Separation

We say the random variables satisfy separation if the sensitive characteristics are statistically independent to the prediction given the target value, and we write.
We can also express this notion with the following formula:
This means that the probability of being classified by the algorithm in each of the groups is equal for two individuals with different sensitive characteristics given that they actually belong in the same group.
Another equivalent expression, in the case of a binary target rate, is that the true positive rate and the false positive rate are equal for every value of the sensitive characteristics:
Finally, another possible relaxation of the given definitions is to allow the value for the difference between rates to be a positive number lower than a given slack, rather than equal to zero.

Sufficiency

We say the random variables satisfy sufficiency if the sensitive characteristics are statistically independent to the target value given the prediction, and we write.
We can also express this notion with the following formula:
This means that the probability of actually being in each of the groups is equal for two individuals with different sensitive characteristics given that they were predicted to belong to the same group.

Relationships between definitions

Finally, we sum up some of the main results that relate the three definitions given above:
Most statistical measures of fairness rely on different metrics, so we will start by defining them. When working with a binary classifier, both the predicted and the actual classes can take two values: positive and negative. Now let us start explaining the different possible relations between predicted and actual outcome:
These relations can be easily represented with a confusion matrix, a table that describes the accuracy of a classification model. In this matrix, columns and rows represent instances of the predicted and the actual cases, respectively.
By using this relations, we can define multiple metrics which can be later used to measure the fairness of an algorithm:
The following criteria can be understood as measures of the three definitions given in the first section, or relaxation of them. In the table to the right, we can see the relationships between them.
To define these measures specifically, we will divide them into three big groups as done in Verma et al.: definitions based on a predicted outcome, on predicted and actual outcomes, and definitions based on predicted probabilities and the actual outcome.
We will be working with a binary classifier and the following notation: refers to the score given by the classifier, which is the probability of a certain subject to be in the positive or the negative class. represents the final classification predicted by the algorithm, and its value is usually derived from, for example will be positive when is above a certain threshold. represents the actual outcome, that is, the real classification of the individual and, finally, denotes the sensitive attributes of the subjects.

Definitions based on predicted outcome

The definitions in this section focus on a predicted outcome for various distributions of subjects. They are the simplest and most intuitive notions of fairness.
These definitions not only considers the predicted outcome but also compare it to the actual outcome.
These definitions are based in the actual outcome and the predicted probability score.
Fairness can be applied to machine learning algorithms in three different ways: data preprocessing, optimization during software training, or post-processing results of the algorithm.

Preprocessing

Usually, the classifier is not the only problem; the dataset is also biased. The discrimination of a dataset with respect to the group can be defined as follows:
That is, an approximation to the difference between the probabilities of belonging in the positive class given that the subject has a protected characteristic different from and equal to.
Algorithms correcting bias at preprocessing remove information about dataset variables which might result in unfair decisions, while trying to alter as little as possible. This is not as simple as just removing the sensitive variable, because other attributes can be correlated to the protected one.
A way to do this is to map each individual in the initial dataset to an intermediate representation in which it is impossible to identify whether it belongs to a particular protected group while maintaining as much information as possible. Then, the new representation of the data is adjusted to get the maximum accuracy in the algorithm.
This way, individuals are mapped into a new multivariable representation where the probability of any member of a protected group to be mapped to a certain value in the new representation is the same as the probability of an individual which doesn't belong to the protected group. Then, this representation is used to obtain the prediction for the individual, instead of the initial data. As the intermediate representation is constructed giving the same probability to individuals inside or outside the protected group, this attribute is hidden to the classificator.
An example is explained in Zemel et al. where a multinomial random variable is used as an intermediate representation. In the process, the system is encouraged to preserve all information except that which can lead to biased decisions, and to obtain a prediction as accurate as possible.
On the one hand, this procedure has the advantage that the preprocessed data can be used for any machine learning task. Furthermore, the classifier does not need to be modified, as the correction is applied to the dataset before processing. On the other hand, the other methods obtain better results in accuracy and fairness.

Reweighing Faisal Kamiran; Toon Calders, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10115-011-0463-8.pdf ''Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination''. Retrieved 17 December 2019

Reweighing is an example of a preprocessing algorithm. The idea is to assign a weight to each dataset point such that the weighted discrimination is 0 with respect to the designated group.
If the dataset was unbiased the sensitive variable and the target variable would be statistically independent and the probability of the joint distribution would be the product of the probabilities as follows:
In reality, however, the dataset is not unbiased and the variables are not statistically independent so the observed probability is:
To compensate for the bias, the software adds a weight, lower for favored objects and higher for unfavored objects. For each we get:
When we have for each a weight associated we compute the weighted discrimination with respect to group as follows:
It can be shown that after reweighting this weighted discrimination is 0.

Optimization at training time

Another approach is to correct the bias at training time. This can be done by adding constraints to the optimization objective of the algorithm. These constraints force the algorithm to improve fairness, by keeping the same rates of certain measures for the protected group and the rest of individuals. For example, we can add to the objective of the algorithm the condition that the false positive rate is the same for individuals in the protected group and the ones outside the protected group.
The main measures used in this approach are false positive rate, false negative rate, and overall misclassification rate. It is possible to add just one or several of these constraints to the objective of the algorithm. Note that the equality of false negative rates implies the equality of true positive rates so this implies the equality of opportunity. After adding the restrictions to the problem it may turn intractable, so a relaxation on them may be needed.
This technique obtains good results in improving fairness while keeping high accuracy and lets the programmer choose the fairness measures to improve. However, each machine learning task may need a different method to be applied and the code in the classifier needs to be modified, which is not always possible.

Adversarial debiasing Brian Hu Zhang; Blake Lemoine; Margaret Mitchell, https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07593 ''Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning''. Retrieved 17 December 2019 Joyce Xu, https://towardsdatascience.com/algorithmic-solutions-to-algorithmic-bias-aef59eaf6565 ''Algorithmic Solutions to Algorithmic Bias: A Technical Guide''. Retrieved 17 December 2019

We train two classifiers at the same time through some gradient-based method. The first one, the predictor tries to accomplish the task of predicting, the target variable, given, the input, by modifying its weights to minimize some loss function. The second one, the adversary tries to accomplish the task of predicting, the sensitive variable, given by modifying its weights to minimize some loss function.
An important point here is that, in order to propagate correctly, above must refer to the raw output of the classifier, not the discrete prediction; for example, with an artificial neural network and a classification problem, could refer to the output of the softmax layer.
Then we update to minimize at each training step according to the gradient and we modify according to the expression:
where is a tuneable hyperparameter that can vary at each time step.
The intuitive idea is that we want the predictor to try to minimize while, at the same time, maximize , so that the adversary fails at predicting the sensitive variable from .
The term prevents the predictor from moving in a direction that helps the adversary decrease its loss function.
It can be shown that training a predictor classification model with this algorithm improves demographic parity with respect to training it without the adversary.

Postprocessing

The final method tries to correct the results of a classifier to achieve fairness. In this method, we have a classifier that returns a score for each individual and we need to do a binary prediction for them. High scores are likely to get a positive outcome, while low scores are likely to get a negative one, but we can adjust the threshold to determine when to answer yes as desired. Note that variations in the threshold value affect the trade-off between the rates for true positives and true negatives.
If the score function is fair in the sense that it is independent of the protected attribute, then any choice of the threshold will also be fair, but classifiers of this type tend to be biased, so a different threshold may be required for each protected group to achieve fairness. A way to do this is plotting the true positive rate against the false negative rate at various threshold settings and find a threshold where the rates for the protected group and other individuals are equal.
The advantages of postprocessing include that the technique can be applied after any classifiers, without modifying it, and has a good performance in fairness measures. The cons are the need to access to the protected attribute in test time and the lack of choice in the balance between accuracy and fairness.

Reject Option based Classification Faisal Kamiran; Asim Karim; Xiangliang Zhang, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.722.3030&rep=rep1&type=pdf ''Decision Theory for Discrimination-aware Classification''. Retrieved 17 December 2019

Given a classifier let be the probability computed by the classifiers as the probability that the instance belongs to the positive class +. When is close to 1 or to 0, the instance is specified with high degree of certainty to belong to class + or - respectively. However, when is closer to 0.5 the classification is more unclear.
We say is a "rejected instance" if with a certain such that.
The algorithm of "ROC" consists on classifying the non-rejected instances following the rule above and the rejected instances as follows: if the instance is an example of a deprived group then label it as positive, otherwise, label it as negative.
We can optimize different measures of discrimination as functions of to find the optimal for each problem and avoid becoming discriminatory against the privileged group.