Cited by 409Ethics and Social Impacts of AIImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Classifying without discriminating

Kamiran, Faisal, Calders, Toon·2009·2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication

Abstract

Classification models usually make predictions on the basis of training data. If the training data is biased towards certain groups or classes of objects, e.g., there is racial discrimination towards black people, the learned model will also show discriminatory behavior towards that particular community. This partial attitude of the learned model may lead to biased outcomes when labeling future unlabeled data objects. Often, however, impartial classification results are desired or even required by law for future data objects in spite of having biased training data. In this paper, we tackle this problem by introducing a new classification scheme for learning unbiased models on biased training data. Our method is based on massaging the dataset by making the least intrusive modifications which lead to an unbiased dataset. On this modified dataset we then learn a non-discriminating classifier. The proposed method has been implemented and experimental results on a credit approval dataset show promising results: in all experiments our method is able to reduce the prejudicial behavior for future classification significantly without loosing too much predictive accuracy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ic4.2009.4909197

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work on detecting discrimination has focused on measuring correlation or mutual information between inputs and outputs, discrepancies in fractions of inputs that produce a given output, or discrepancies in output probability distributions.

    “Prior work on detecting discrimination has focused on measuring correlation or mutual information between inputs and outputs [79], discrepancies in the fractions of inputs that produce a given output [18, 19, 39-42, 87-89, 91], or discrepancies in output probability distributions [51].”

    From Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination (2017) · cites this paper as [39]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Venue
2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2009-02
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W2157928966
Cited by
409
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 8
FWCI
28.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
algorithmic discrimination, biased training data, racial discrimination, credit approval, algorithmic fairness, prediction accuracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review