skip to main content
10.1145/3278721.3278733acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaiesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fairness in Relational Domains

Published:27 December 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

AI and machine learning tools are being used with increasing frequency for decision making in domains that affect peoples' lives such as employment, education, policing and loan approval. These uses raise concerns about biases of algorithmic discrimination and have motivated the development of fairness-aware machine learning. However, existing fairness approaches are based solely on attributes of individuals. In many cases, discrimination is much more complex, and taking into account the social, organizational, and other connections between individuals is important. We introduce new notions of fairness that are able to capture the relational structure in a domain. We use first-order logic to provide a flexible and expressive language for specifying complex relational patterns of discrimination. Furthermore, we extend an existing statistical relational learning framework, probabilistic soft logic (PSL), to incorporate our definition of relational fairness. We refer to this fairness-aware framework FairPSL. FairPSL makes use of the logical definitions of fairnesss but also supports a probabilistic interpretation. In particular, we show how to perform maximum a posteriori(MAP) inference by exploiting probabilistic dependencies within the domain while avoiding violation of fairness guarantees. Preliminary empirical evaluation shows that we are able to make both accurate and fair decisions.

References

  1. European Union Legislation. (a) Racial Equality Directive. 2000. (b) Employment Equality Directive, 2000. (c) Gender Employment Directive, 2006. (d) Equal Treatment Directive (proposal), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. UK Legislation. (a) Sex Discrimination Act. 1975. (b) Race Relation Act, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. United Nations Legislation. (a) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. (c) Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966. (d) Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Duhai Alshukaili, Alvaro A. A. Fernandes, and Norman W. Paton. 2016. Structuring Linked Data Search Results Using Probabilistic Soft Logic. In International Semantic Web Conference (1) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 9981. 3--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Stephen H. Bach, Matthias Broecheler, Bert Huang, and Lise Getoor. 2017. Hinge- Loss Markov Random Fields and Probabilistic Soft Logic. Journal of Machine Learning Research 18 (2017), 109:1--109:67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review 104 (2016), 671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Danah Boyd, Karen Levy, and Alice Marwick. 2014. The networked nature of algorithmic discrimination. In Data and discrimination: Collected essays. 53--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. YooJung Choi, Adnan Darwiche, and Guy Van den Broeck. 2017. Optimal Feature Selection for Decision Robustness in Bayesian Networks. In IJCAI. ijcai.org, 1554--1560. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. CoRR abs/1703.00056 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Steven Diamond and Stephen P. Boyd. 2016. CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 (2016), 83:1--83:5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard S. Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In ITCS. ACM, 214--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Javid Ebrahimi, Dejing Dou, and Daniel Lowd. 2016. Weakly Supervised Tweet Stance Classification by Relational Bootstrapping. In EMNLP. The Association for Computational Linguistics, 1012--1017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michael Feldman, Sorelle A. Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. In KDD. ACM, 259--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lise Getoor and Ben Taskar. 2007. Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning. Vol. 1. MIT press Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In NIPS. 3315--3323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Toshihiro Kamishima, Shotaro Akaho, and Jun Sakuma. 2011. Fairness-aware Learning through Regularization Approach. In ICDMW. IEEE Computer Society, 643--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pigi Kouki, Shobeir Fakhraei, James R. Foulds, Magdalini Eirinaki, and Lise Getoor. 2015. HyPER: A Flexible and Extensible Probabilistic Framework for Hybrid Recommender Systems. In RecSys. ACM, 99--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Matt J. Kusner, Joshua R. Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual Fairness. In NIPS. 4069--4079. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Dino Pedreschi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. 2012. A study of top-k measures for discrimination discovery. In SAC. ACM, 126--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Dino Pedreschi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. 2013. The Discovery of Discrimination. In Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, Vol. 3. Springer, 91--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Dhanya Sridhar, Shobeir Fakhraei, and Lise Getoor. 2016. A probabilistic approach for collective similarity-based drug-drug interaction prediction. Bioinformatics 32, 20 (2016), 3175--3182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. RobertWest, Hristo S. Paskov, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2014. Exploiting Social Network Structure for Person-to-Person Sentiment Analysis. TACL 2 (2014), 297--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2017. From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classification. In NIPS. 228--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Richard S. Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. 2013. Learning Fair Representations. In ICML (3) (JMLRWorkshop and Conference Proceedings), Vol. 28. JMLR.org, 325--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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
    AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
    December 2018
    406 pages
    ISBN:9781450360128
    DOI:10.1145/3278721

    Copyright © 2018 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: 27 December 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    AIES '18 Paper Acceptance Rate61of162submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate61of162submissions,38%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader