Scribd
Upload
8 views1 page

entropy-23-00018-v2-25

The document discusses various methods for incorporating fairness into machine learning models, highlighting the limitations of existing approaches and proposing new notions of fairness based on demographic group preferences. It also introduces a systematic framework for fair classification that balances predictive accuracy with fairness constraints. Additionally, it presents empirical evaluations and visualizations demonstrating the effectiveness of these methods in reducing discrimination and promoting fairness.

Uploaded by

sahilbhatt798
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views1 page

entropy-23-00018-v2-25

The document discusses various methods for incorporating fairness into machine learning models, highlighting the limitations of existing approaches and proposing new notions of fairness based on demographic group preferences. It also introduces a systematic framework for fair classification that balances predictive accuracy with fairness constraints. Additionally, it presents empirical evaluations and visualizations demonstrating the effectiveness of these methods in reducing discrimination and promoting fairness.

Uploaded by

sahilbhatt798
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Entropy 2021, 23, 18 25 of 45

measures can be converted into optimisation constraints, thus incorporated in the train-
ing process, and how well they work in terms of reducing disparate mistreatment, while
maintaining high accuracy standards. However, they warned of the potential limitations of
their method due to the absence of any theoretical guarantees on the global optimality of
the solution as well as due to the the approximation methods used, which might prove to
be inaccurate when applied to small datasets.
In another work by Zafar et al. [100], it was pointed out that many of the existing
notions of fairness, regarding treatment or impact, are too rigorous and restrictive and, as a
result, tend to hinder the overall model performance. In order to address this, the authors
proposed notions of fairness that are based on the collective preference of the different
demographic groups. More specifically, their notion of fairness tries to encapsulate which
treatment or outcome would the different demographic groups prefer when given a list
of choices to pick from. For these preferences to be taken into consideration, proxies that
capture and quantify them were formulated by the authors and boundary-based classifiers
were optimised with respect to these proxies. Through empirical evaluation, while using a
variety of both real-world and synthetic datasets, it was illustrated that classifiers pursuing
fairness based on group preferences achieved higher predictive accuracy than those seeking
fairness through strictly defined parity.
Agarwal et al. [95] introduced a systematic framework that incorporates many other
previously outlined definitions of fairness, treating them as special cases. The core concept
behind the method is to reduce the problem of fair classification to a sequence of fair
classification sub-problems, subject to the given constraints. In order to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the framework, two specific reductions that optimally balance the tradeoff
between predictive accuracy and any notion of single-criterion definition of fairness were
proposed by the authors.
In Figures 6 and 7, the use of machine learning interpretability methods to reduce
discrimination and promote fairness is presented. More specifically, in Figure 6 parity
testing is applied using the aequitas library on the ProPublica COMPAS Recidivism Risk
Assessment dataset, whereas in Figure 7, a comparison of the level of race bias (bias
disparity) among different groups in the sample population is shown.

Figure 6. Parity testing, using the aequitas library, on the ProPublica COMPAS Recidivism Risk Assessment dataset, with
three metrics: False Positive Rate Disparity, False Discovery Rate Disparity, and True Positive Rate Disparity.

You might also like