Abstract
Nowadays more and more decisions in lending, recruitment, grant or study applications are partially being automated based on computational models (classifiers) premised on historical data. If the historical data was discriminating towards socially and legally protected groups, a model learnt over this data will make discriminatory decisions in the future. As a solution, most of the discrimination free modeling techniques force the treatment of the sensitive groups to be equal and do not take into account that some differences may be explained by other factors and thus justified. For example, disproportional recruitment rates for males and females may be explainable by the fact that more males have higher education; treating males and females equally will introduce reverse discrimination, which may be undesirable as well. Given that the law or domain experts specify which factors are discriminatory (e.g. gender, marital status) and which can be used for explanation (e.g. education), this chapter presents a methodology how to quantify the tolerable difference in treatment of the sensitive groups. We instruct how to measure, which part of the difference is explainable and present the local learning techniques that remove exactly the illegal discrimination, allowing the differences in decisions to be present as long as they are explainable.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahearn, T.: Discrimination lawsuit shows importance of employer policy on the use of criminal records during background checks (2010), http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2010/04/12/
Asuncion, A., Newman, D.: UCI machine learning repository (2007), http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/
Bickel, P., Hammel, E., O’connell, J.: Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science 187(4175) (1975)
Calders, T., Kamiran, F., Pechenizkiy, M.: Building classifiers with independency constraints. In: IEEE ICDM Workshop on Domain Driven Data Mining, pp. 13–18 (2009)
Calders, T., Verwer, S.: Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 21, 277–292 (2010)
Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics, ‘Volkstelling’ (2001), http://easy.dans.knaw.nl/dms
Hart, M.: Subjective decisionmaking and unconscious discrimination. Alabama Law Review 56, 741 (2005); University of Colorado, Law Legal Studies Research Paper 06-26
Kamiran, F., Calders, T.: Classification with no discrimination by preferential sampling. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Machine Learning Conference of Belgium and The Netherlands (BENELEARN 2010), pp. 1–6 (2010)
Kamiran, F., Calders, T., Pechenizkiy, M.: Discrimination aware decision tree learning. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICDM International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2010), pp. 869–874 (2010)
Legislation: The us equal pay act (1963), http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
Pedreschi, D., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F.: Discrimination-aware data mining. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2008), pp. 560–568 (2008)
Pedreschi, D., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F.: Measuring discrimination in socially-sensitive decision records. In: Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining SDM 2009, pp. 581–592 (2009)
Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., Turini, F.: DCUBE: discrimination discovery in databases. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD 2010), pp. 1127–1130 (2010)
Simpson, E.H.: The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 13, 238–241 (1951)
Tootell, G.: Redlining in boston: Do mortgage lenders discriminate against neighborhoods? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, 1049–1079 (1996)
Zliobaite, I., Kamiran, F., Calders, T.: Handling conditional discrimination. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICDM International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2011 (2011) (in press)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kamiran, F., Žliobaitė, I. (2013). Explainable and Non-explainable Discrimination in Classification. In: Custers, B., Calders, T., Schermer, B., Zarsky, T. (eds) Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30486-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30487-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)