Cited by 125Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataDiscrimination and Equality Law

Handling Conditional Discrimination

Žliobaite, Indre, Kamiran, Faisal, Calders, Toon·2011·2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining

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

Crossref · 10.1109/icdm.2011.72

Cites

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?

  • 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
Žliobaite, 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