Decision Theory for Discrimination-Aware Classification
Abstract
Social discrimination (e.g., against females) arising from data mining techniques is a growing concern worldwide. In recent years, several methods have been proposed for making classifiers learned over discriminatory data discrimination-aware. However, these methods suffer from two major shortcomings: (1) They require either modifying the discriminatory data or tweaking a specific classification algorithm and (2) They are not flexible w.r.t. discrimination control and multiple sensitive attribute handling. In this paper, we present two solutions for discrimination-aware classification that neither require data modification nor classifier tweaking. Our first and second solutions exploit, respectively, the reject option of probabilistic classifier(s) and the disagreement region of general classifier ensembles to reduce discrimination. We relate both solutions with decision theory for better understanding of the process. Our experiments using real-world datasets demonstrate that our solutions outperform existing state-of-the-art methods, especially at low discrimination which is a significant advantage. The superior performance coupled with flexible control over discrimination and easy applicability to multiple sensitive attributes makes our solutions an important step forward in practical discrimination-aware classification.
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?
Such instances are considered to be ambiguous, and therefore potentially influenced by bias.
“Such instances are considered to be ambiguous, and therefore potentially inluenced by bias [167].”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
Discriminatory decisions are often made close to decision making boundaries because of a decision maker's bias.
“Thresholding is a post-processing approach which is motivated on the basis that discriminatory decisions are often made close to decision making boundaries because of a decision maker's bias [167] and that humans apply threshold rules when making decisions [176].”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 300
- Authors
- Kamiran, F., Karim, A., & Zhang, X.
- Affiliations
- King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (SA)
- Lahore University of Management Sciences (PK)
- Venue
- 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2012-12
- Pages
- 924-929
- ISSN
- 1550-4786 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979769549
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 16.63
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- King Abdullah University of Science and Technology Repository (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) (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
- algorithmic discrimination, decision theory, probabilistic classifiers, reject option, ensemble classifiers, sensitive attributes, algorithmic fairness, 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