skip to main content
10.1145/3287560.3287575acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Racial categories in machine learning

Published:29 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Controversies around race and machine learning have sparked debate among computer scientists over how to design machine learning systems that guarantee fairness. These debates rarely engage with how racial identity is embedded in our social experience, making for sociological and psychological complexity. This complexity challenges the paradigm of considering fairness to be a formal property of supervised learning with respect to protected personal attributes. Racial identity is not simply a personal subjective quality. For people labeled "Black" it is an ascribed political category that has consequences for social differentiation embedded in systemic patterns of social inequality achieved through both social and spatial segregation. In the United States, racial classification can best be understood as a system of inherently unequal status categories that places whites as the most privileged category while signifying the Negro/black category as stigmatized. Social stigma is reinforced through the unequal distribution of societal rewards and goods along racial lines that is reinforced by state, corporate, and civic institutions and practices. This creates a dilemma for society and designers: be blind to racial group disparities and thereby reify racialized social inequality by no longer measuring systemic inequality, or be conscious of racial categories in a way that itself reifies race. We propose a third option. By preceding group fairness interventions with unsupervised learning to dynamically detect patterns of segregation, machine learning systems can mitigate the root cause of social disparities, social segregation and stratification, without further anchoring status categories of disadvantage.

References

  1. Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica (May 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Julia Angwin and Terry Parris. 2016. Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race. https:/www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar, Joichi Ito Virza, Jonathan Zittrain, et al. 2017. Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.08238 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. Cal. L. Rev. 104 (2016), 671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Michał Bojanowski and Rense Corten. 2014. Measuring segregation in social networks. Social Networks 39 (2014), 14--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Pedro Bordalo, Katherine Coffman, Nicola Gennaioli, and Andrei Shleifer. 2016. Stereotypes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, 4 (2016), 1753--1794.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Pierre Bourdieu. 2011. The forms of capital.(1986). Cultural theory: An anthology 1 (2011), 81--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Traci Burch. 2015. Skin Color and the Criminal Justice System: Beyond Black-White Disparities in Sentencing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12, 3 (2015), 395--420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R Jones, and Sonya R Porter. 2018. Race and economic opportunity in the United States: An intergenerational perspective. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, and Aziz Huq. 2017. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 797--806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Amit Datta, Anupam Datta, Jael Makagon, Deirdre K Mulligan, and Michael Carl Tschantz. 2018. Discrimination in Online Advertising: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 20--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Anupam Datta, Matthew Fredrikson, Gihyuk Ko, Piotr Mardziel, and Shayak Sen. 2017. Use privacy in data-driven systems: Theory and experiments with machine learnt programs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1193--1210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. 2015. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, 1 (2015), 92--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Thomas A DiPrete, Andrew Gelman, Tyler McCormick, Julien Teitler, and Tian Zheng. 2011. Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. Amer. J. Sociology 116, 4 (2011), 1234--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. ACM, 214--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Facebook. 2017. Improving Enforcement and Promoting Diversity: Updates to Ads Policies and Tools. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/02/improving-enforcement-and-promoting-diversity-updates-to-ads-policies-and-tools/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael Feldman, Sorelle A Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 259--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Anthony W Flores, Kristin Bechtel, and Christopher T Lowenkamp. 2016. False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to Machine Bias: There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And It's Biased against Blacks. Fed. Probation 80 (2016), 38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Linton C Freeman. 1978. Segregation in social networks. Sociological Methods & Research 6, 4 (1978), 411--429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Stephen Jay Gould. 1996. The mismeasure of man. WW Norton & Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, Nati Srebro, et al. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3315--3323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Victoria Hattam. 2007. In the shadow of race: Jews, Latinos, and immigrant politics in the United States. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Bruce D Haynes. 2018. The Soul of Judaism: Jews of African Descent in America. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Bruce D Haynes and Jesus Hernandez. 2008. Place, space and race: monopolistic group closure and the dark side of social capital. Networked Urbanism: Social Capital in the City (2008), 59--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Alex Hern. 2016. Facebook's 'ethnic affinity' advertising sparks concerns of racial profiling. The Guardian (Mar 2016). https:/www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/22/facebooks-ethnic-affinity-advertising-concerns-racial-profilingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 656--666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Rory Kramer, Robert DeFina, and Lance Hannon. 2016. Racial rigidity in the United States: comment on Saperstein and Penner. Amer. J. Sociology 122, 1 (2016), 233--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4066--4076. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Matt J Kusner, Chris Russell, Joshua R Loftus, and Ricardo Silva. 2018. Causal Interventions for Fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02380 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner, and Julia Angwin. 2016. How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica (5 2016) 9 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bruce G Link and Jo C Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology 27, 1 (2001), 363--385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Mara Loveman. 2014. National colors: Racial classification and the state in Latin America. Oxford University Press, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Douglas S Massey. 2007. Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. Russell Sage Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ellis P Monk Jr. 2014. Skin tone stratification among black Americans, 2001-2003. Social Forces 92, 4 (2014), 1313--1337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Mark EJ Newman. 2003. Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E 67, 2 (2003), 026126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Michael Omi and Howard Winant. 2014. Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas Piketty. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Angelisa C Plane, Elissa M Redmiles, Michelle L Mazurek, and Michael Carl Tschantz. 2017. Exploring user perceptions of discrimination in online targeted advertising. In USENIX Security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sean F Reardon and David O'Sullivan. 2004. Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological methodology 34, 1 (2004), 121--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Wendy Roth. 2012. Race migrations: Latinos and the cultural transformation of race. Stanford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Wendy D Roth and Biorn Ivemark. 2018. Genetic Options: The Impact of Genetic Ancestry Testing on Consumers' Racial and Ethnic Identities. Amer. J. Sociology 124, 1 (2018), 150--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Aliya Saperstein and Andrew M Penner. 2012. Racial fluidity and inequality in the United States. American journal of sociology 118, 3 (2012), 676--727.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Gábor Simonovits and Gábor Kézdi. 2016. Economic hardship triggers identification with disadvantaged minorities. The Journal of Politics 78, 3 (2016), 882--892.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Deenesh Sohoni. 2007. Unsuitable suitors: Anti-miscegenation laws, naturalization laws, and the construction of Asian identities. Law & Society Review 41, 3 (2007), 587--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Till Speicher, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Nunes Ribeiro, George Arvanitakis, Fabrício Benevenuto, Krishna P Gummadi, Patrick Loiseau, and Alan Mislove. 2018. Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 5--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue 11, 3 (2013), 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Takeyuki Tsuda. 2014. I'm American, not Japanese!': the struggle for racial citizenship among later-generation Japanese Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37, 3 (2014), 405--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jill Viglione, Lance Hannon, and Robert DeFina. 2011. The impact of light skin on prison time for black female offenders. The Social Science Journal 48, 1 (2011), 250--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Michael J White. 1983. The measurement of spatial segregation. American journal of sociology 88, 5 (1983), 1008--1018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. William Julius Wilson. 1978. The declining significance of race. Society 15, 2 (1978), 56--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. David W Wong. 2005. Formulating a general spatial segregation measure. The Professional Geographer 57, 2 (2005), 285--294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Tukufu Zuberi. 2000. Deracializing social statistics: Problems in the quantification of race. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 568, 1 (2000), 172--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Racial categories in machine learning

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            FAT* '19: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
            January 2019
            388 pages
            ISBN:9781450361255
            DOI:10.1145/3287560

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 29 January 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Upcoming Conference

            FAccT '24

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader