The central question of this paper is how to simply enhance a set of given supervised learning algorithms under some fairness requirements, to ensure that any sensitive variable does not “unfairly” influence the outcome. To achieve this goal, we work with several notions of fairness (Demographic Parity, Equalized Odds, Lack of Disparate Mistreatment), possibly generalised to more general concepts of conditional fairness. We linearly combine an ensemble of binary and/or continuous basis classifiers or regressors to build an “approximately optimal” solution in terms of fairness and accuracy for any given notion of fairness. The trade-off between fairness and predictive power is managed by considering penalised criteria. We rely on post-processing procedures without any transformation of the data nor of the basis training algorithms. Some empirical experiments, by simulation and on real databases, are provided to illustrate our approach.
AbebeS. A.LuccheseC.OrlandoS. (2022). EIFFFEL: Enforcing fairness in forests by flipping leaves. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP symposium on applied computing, (pp. 429–436).
2.
AgarwalA.BeygelzimerA.DudíkM.LangfordJ.WallachH. (2018). A reductions approach to fair classification. In International conference on machine learning, (pp. 60–69). PMLR.
3.
AgarwalA.DudíkM.WuZ. S. (2019). Fair regression: Quantitative definitions and reduction-based algorithms. In International conference on machine learning, (pp. 120–129). PMLR.
4.
BarocasS.HardtN.NarayananA. (2023). Fairness in machine learning, limitations and opportunities. MIT press.
5.
BerkR.HeidariH.JabbariS.KearnsM.RothA. (2018). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods and Research. On-line publication, https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782533
6.
BhaskaruniD.HuH.LanC. (2019). Improving prediction fairness via model ensemble. In 2019 IEEE 31st International conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), (pp. 1810–1814). IEEE.
7.
BiauG. (2012). Analysis of a random forests model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 1063–109.
8.
BiauG.ScornetE. (2015). A random forest guided tour. Test, 25, 197–227.
BreimanL. (2001). Random forest. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.
11.
BuolamwiniJ.GebruT. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proceedings of 2018 conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, FAT 2018, New York, USA (pp. 81, 77–91).
12.
CaldersT.KamiranF.PechenizkiyM. (2009). Building classifiers with independency constraints. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 13–18.
13.
CaldersT.VerwerS. (2010). Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 21, 277–292.
14.
CalmonF.WeiD.VinzamuriB.RamamurthyK. N.VarshneyK. R. (2017). Optimized pre-processing for discrimination prevention. Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 3995–4004.
15.
CentorrinoS.FlorensJ. P.LoubesJ.-M. (2022). Fairness in Machine Learning and Econometrics. In Econometrics with machine learning, (pp. 217–250).
16.
ChouldechovaA.Benavides-PradoD.FialkoO.VaithianathanR. (2018). A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT2018), 134–148.
17.
ChzhenE.DenisC.HebiriM.OnetoL.PontilM. (2020). Fair regression via plug-in estimator and recalibration with statistical guarantees. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 19137–19148.
18.
ClearyT. A. (1966). Test bias: Validity of the scholastic aptitude test for negro and white students in integrated colleges. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 2, i–23.
19.
Corbett-DaviesS.PiersonE.FellerA.GoelS.HuqA. (2017). Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, (pp. 797–806).
20.
DarlingtonR. B. (1971). Another look at cultural fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 71–82.
21.
del BarrioE.GordalizaP.LoubesJ.-M. (2020). Review of mathematical frameworks for fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.13755.
22.
Di CarloF.NezamiN.AnahidehH.AsudehA. (2023). FairPilot: An explorative system for hyperparameter tuning through the lens of fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04679.
23.
DoniniM.OnetoL.Ben-DavidS.Shawe-TaylorJ. S.PontilM. (2018). Empirical risk minimization under fairness constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2791–2801.
24.
DworkC.HardtY.PitassiT.ReingoldO.ZemelR. (2012). Fairness Through Awareness. In Proc. 3rd innovations of theoretical computer science, (pp. 214–226).
25.
EinhornH. J.BassA. R. (1971). Methodological considerations relevant to discrimination in employment testing. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 261.
26.
EinmahlU.MasonD. M. (2005). Uniform in bandwidth consistency of kernel-type function estimators. The Annals of Statistics, 33, 1380–1403.
27.
FantinJ. (2020). A distributed fair random forest (Doctoral dissertation).
28.
FeldmanM.FriedlerS. A.MoellerJ.ScheideggerC.VenkatasubramanianS. (2015). Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proc. 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, (pp. 259–268).
29.
FriedlerS. A.ScheideggerC.VenkatasubramanianS.ChoudharyS.HamiltonE. P.RothD. (2019). A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning. In Proc. conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, (pp. 329–338).
30.
FriedmanJ. H.HallP. (2007). On bagging and nonlinear estimation. Journal of statistical planning and inference, 1373(3), 669–683.
31.
GhyselsE.BabiiA.ChenX.KumarR. (2020). Binary choice with asymmetric loss in a Data-Rich environment: Theory and an application to racial justice (No. 15418). CEPR discussion papers.
32.
Grgić-HlaaN.ZafarM. B.GummadiK. P.WellerA. (2017). On fairness, diversity and randomness in algorithmic decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.10208.
33.
GuardieiroV.RaimundoM. M.PocoJ. (2023). Enforcing fairness using ensemble of diverse Pareto-optimal models. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1–29.
34.
HardtM.PriceE.SrebroN. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3315–3323.
35.
HastieT.TibshiraniR.FriedmanJ. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer Science & Business Media, LLC.
36.
HuH.LiuY.WangZ.LanC. (2019). A distributed fair machine learning framework with private demographic data protection. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), (pp. 1102–1107).
37.
HurlinC.PerignonC.SaurinS. (2024). The fairness of credit scoring models. Management Science, Online.
38.
IosifidisV.FetahuB.NtoutsiE. (2019). FAE: A fairness-aware ensemble framework. In 2019 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data), (pp. 1375–1380). IEEE.
39.
KamiranF.CaldersT. (2012). Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowledge and Information Systems, 33, 1–33.
40.
KamiranF.CaldersT.PechenizkiyM. (2010). Discrimination aware decision tree learning. 2010 IEEE international conference on data mining, (pp. 869–874).
41.
KamiranF.ŽliobaitI.CaldersT. (2013). Quantifying explainable discrimination and removing illegal discrimination in automated decision making. Knowledge and Information Systems, 35, 613–644.
42.
KamishimaT.AkahoS.AsohH.SakumaJ. (2012). Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer. Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 35–50.
43.
KearnsM.NeelS.RothA.WuZ. S. (2018). Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05144.
44.
KenfackP. J.KhanA. M.KazmiS. A.HussainR.OracevicA.KhattakA. M. (2021). Impact of model ensemble on the fairness of classifiers in machine learning. In 2021 International conference on applied artificial intelligence (ICAPAI), (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
45.
KimH.KimH.MoonH.AhnH. (2011). A weight-adjusted voting algorithm for ensembles of classifiers. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 40, 437–449.
46.
KitagawaT.SakaguchiS.TetenovA. (2021). Constrained classification and policy learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.12886.
47.
KleinbergJ.MullainathanS.RaghavanM. (2017). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. 2017 Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), 1–43.
48.
KotsiantisS.PintelasP. (2004). Combining bagging and boosting. International Journal of Computational Intelligence, 1, 324–333.
49.
KusnerM. J.LoftusJ.RussellC.SilvaR. (2017). Counterfactual fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2017), 4066–4076.
50.
LambrechtA.TuckerC. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender based discrimination in the display of stem career Ads. Management Science, 65, 2966–2981.
51.
LuQ.CuiZ.ChenY.ChenX. (2017). Extracting optimal actionable plans from additive tree models. Frontiers of Computational Science, 11, 1–15.
52.
LundbergS. M.LeeS. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4765–4774.
53.
LuongB. T.RuggieriS.TuriniF. (2011). K-NN as an implementation of situation testing for discrimination discovery and prevention. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, (pp. 502–510).
54.
MadrasD.CreagerE.PitassiT.ZemelR. (2018). Learning adversarially fair and transferable representations. In International conference on machine learnin, (pp. 3384–3393). PMLR.
55.
MakhloufK.ZhiouaS.PalamidessiC. (2021). Machine learning fairness notions: Bridging the gap with real-world applications. Information Processing & Management, 58(5), 102642.
56.
MaudesJ.RodriguezJ. J.Garcia-OsorioC.Garcia-PedrajasN. (2012). Random feature weights for decision tree ensemble construction. Information Fusion, 13, 20–30.
57.
NanfackG.DelchevalerieV.FrénayB. (2021). Boundary-based fairness constraints in decision trees and random forests. In ESANN 2021 Proceedings 29th European symposium on artificial neural networks, computational intelligence and machine learning. (pp. 375–380).
58.
NeweyW. K.McFaddenD. (1994). Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In Handbook of econometrics 4, (pp. 2111–2245).
59.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. (NYU Press).
60.
O’NeilC. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democraty. (Broadway Books).
61.
PedreschiD.RuggieriS.TuriniF. (2009). Integrating induction and deduction for finding evidence of discrimination. Proc. of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’09), 157–166.
62.
RaffE.SylvesterS.MillsS. (2018). Fair forests: Regularized tree induction to minimize model bias. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, (pp. 243–250).
63.
RambachanA.KleinbergJ.MullainathanS.LudwigJ. (2020). An economic approach to regulating algorithms. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
64.
RitovY. A.SunY.ZhaoR. (2017). On conditional parity as a notion of non-discrimination in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08519.
65.
VermaS.RubinJ. (2018). Fairness definitions explained. In Proceedings of the international workshop on software fairness, (pp. 1–7).
66.
VieuP. (1993). Bandwidth selection for kernel regression: A survey. Computer Intensive Methods in Statistics (Physica, Heidelberg), 134–149.
67.
WagerS.AtheyS. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of The American Statistical Association, 113, 1228–1242.
68.
WilliamsonR. C.MenonA. K. (2019). Fairness risk measures. In International conference on machine learning, (pp. 6786–6797). PMLR.
XuR.CuiP.KuangK.LiB.ZhouL.ShenZ.CuiW. (2020). Algorithmic decision making with conditional fairness. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, (pp. 2125–2135).
71.
ZafarM. B.ValeraI.Gomez RodriguezM.GummadiK. P. (2017). Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proc. 26th International conference on world wide web, international world wide web conferences steering committee, (pp. 1171–1180).
72.
ZemelR.WuY.SwerskyK.PitassiT.DworkC. (2013). Learning fair representations. In Proc. international conference on machine learning, (pp. 325–333).
73.
ZhangW.BifetA.ZhangX.WeissJ. C.NejdlW. (2021). FARF: A fair and adaptive random forests classifier. In Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining: 25th Pacific-Asia conference, PAKDD 2021, Proceedings, Part II, (pp. 245–256).
74.
ZliobaiteI. (2015). On the relation between accuracy and fairness in binary classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.05723.
