Uncertainty in Fairness Assessment: Maintaining Stable Conclusions Despite Fluctuations

Several recent works encourage the use of a Bayesian framework when assessing performance and fairness metrics of a classification algorithm in a supervised setting. We propose the Uncertainty Matters (UM) framework that generalizes a Beta-Binomial approach to derive the posterior distribution of any criteria combination, allowing stable performance assessment in a bias-aware setting.We suggest modeling the confusion matrix of each demographic group using a Multinomial distribution updated through a Bayesian procedure. We extend UM to be applicable under the popular K-fold cross-validation procedure. Experiments highlight the benefits of UM over classical evaluation frameworks regarding informativeness and stability.

A Survey on Preserving Fairness Guarantees in Changing Environments

Human lives are increasingly being affected by the outcomes of automated decision-making systems and it is essential for the latter to be, not only accurate, but also fair. The literature of algorithmic fairness has grown considerably over the last decade, where most of the approaches are evaluated under the strong assumption that the train and test samples are independently and identically drawn from the same underlying distribution. However, in practice, dissimilarity between the training and deployment environments exists, which compromises the performance of the decision-making algorithm as well as its fairness guarantees in the deployment data. There is an emergent research line that studies how to preserve fairness guarantees when the data generating processes differ between the source (train) and target (test) domains, which is growing remarkably. With this survey, we aim to provide a wide and unifying overview on the topic. For such purpose, we propose a taxonomy of the existing approaches for fair classification under distribution shift, highlight benchmarking alternatives, point out the relation with other similar research fields and eventually, identify future venues of research.

Review of Mathematical frameworks for Fairness in Machine Learning

A review of the main fairness definitions and fair learning methodologies proposed in the literature over the last years is presented from a mathematical point of view. Following our independence-based approach, we consider how to build fair algorithms and the consequences on the degradation of their performance compared to the possibly unfair case. This corresponds to the price for fairness given by the criteria $\textit{statistical parity}$ or $\textit{equality of odds}$. Novel results giving the expressions of the optimal fair classifier and the optimal fair predictor (under a linear regression gaussian model) in the sense of $\textit{equality of odds}$ are presented.

A survey of bias in Machine Learning through the prism of Statistical Parity for the Adult Data Set

Applications based on Machine Learning models have now become an indispensable part of the everyday life and the professional world. A critical question then recently arised among the population: Do algorithmic decisions convey any type of discrimination against specific groups of population or minorities? In this paper, we show the importance of understanding how a bias can be introduced into automatic decisions. We first present a mathematical framework for the fair learning problem, specifically in the binary classification setting. We then propose to quantify the presence of bias by using the standard Disparate Impact index on the real and well-known Adult income data set. Finally, we check the performance of different approaches aiming to reduce the bias in binary classification outcomes. Importantly, we show that some intuitive methods are ineffective. This sheds light on the fact trying to make fair machine learning models may be a particularly challenging task, in particular when the training observations contain a bias.

Confidence Intervals for Testing Disparate Impact in Fair Learning

We provide the asymptotic distribution of the major indexes used in the statistical literature to quantify disparate treatment in machine learning. We aim at promoting the use of confidence intervals when testing the so-called group disparate impact. We illustrate on some examples the importance of using confidence intervals and not a single value.