Handling Conditional Discrimination
Abstract
Historical data used for supervised learning may contain discrimination. We study how to train classifiers on such data, so that they are discrimination free with respect to a given sensitive attribute, e.g., gender. Existing techniques that deal with this problem aim at removing all discrimination and do not take into account that part of the discrimination may be explainable by other attributes, such as, e.g., education level. In this context, we introduce and analyze the issue of conditional non-discrimination in classifier design. We show that some of the differences in decisions across the sensitive groups can be explainable and hence tolerable. We observe that in such cases, the existing discrimination aware techniques will introduce a reverse discrimination, which is undesirable as well. Therefore, we develop local techniques for handling conditional discrimination when one of the attributes is considered to be explanatory. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the new local techniques remove exactly the bad discrimination, allowing differences in decisions as long as they are explainable.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Measures such as quotas do not mandate perfect parity, as distributions of qualifications across groups can be unbalanced for legitimate, explainable reasons.
“In general these measures do not mandate perfect parity, as distributions of qualifications across groups can be unbalanced for legitimate, explainable reasons [29, 39].”
From FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm (2017) · cites this paper as [39]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 125
- Authors
- liobaite, I., Kamiran, F., & Calders, T.
- Affiliations
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Venue
- 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-12
- Pages
- 992-1001
- ISSN
- 1550-4786 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1988368118
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 49.11
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings (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 › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- conditional discrimination, algorithmic discrimination, sensitive attributes, algorithmic fairness, reverse discrimination, classifier design, gender discrimination
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