A Methodology for Direct and Indirect Discrimination Prevention in Data Mining
Abstract
Data mining is an increasingly important technology for extracting useful knowledge hidden in large collections of data. There are, however, negative social perceptions about data mining, among which potential privacy invasion and potential discrimination. The latter consists of unfairly treating people on the basis of their belonging to a specific group. Automated data collection and data mining techniques such as classification rule mining have paved the way to making automated decisions, like loan granting/denial, insurance premium computation, etc. If the training data sets are biased in what regards discriminatory (sensitive) attributes like gender, race, religion, etc., discriminatory decisions may ensue. For this reason, anti-discrimination techniques including discrimination discovery and prevention have been introduced in data mining. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect. Direct discrimination occurs when decisions are made based on sensitive attributes. Indirect discrimination occurs when decisions are made based on nonsensitive attributes which are strongly correlated with biased sensitive ones. In this paper, we tackle discrimination prevention in data mining and propose new techniques applicable for direct or indirect discrimination prevention individually or both at the same time. We discuss how to clean training data sets and outsourced data sets in such a way that direct and/or indirect discriminatory decision rules are converted to legitimate (nondiscriminatory) classification rules. We also propose new metrics to evaluate the utility of the proposed approaches and we compare these approaches. The experimental evaluations demonstrate that the proposed techniques are effective at removing direct and/or indirect discrimination biases in the original data set while preserving data quality.
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?
Omission of sensitive variables from training data decreases model accuracy.
“Omission has been shown to decrease model accuracy [61,136,253] and increase discrimination [54,89,165].”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [136]
Applications in perturbation-based data repair have shown that accuracy is not significantly affected.
“Applications in perturbationbased data repair [98,125,136,152,154,172] have shown that accuracy is not signiicantly afected.”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [136]
Changes to the data should be minimised.
“As for transformation, modiication of the data via relabelling and perturbation is not always legally permissible [17] and changes to the data should be minimised [136,204].”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [136]
The measurement of candidate qualification will embody preexisting bias as well as technical bias, as learning algorithms are known to be susceptible to direct and indirect discrimination.
“We note that this measurement will embody preexisting bias (e.g. if black pilots are given less opportunities to flight they accumulate less flight hours), as well as technical bias , as learning algorithms are known to be susceptible to direct and indirect discrimination [15, 16].”
From FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm (2017) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 312
- Authors
- Hajian, S., & Domingo-Ferrer, J.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES)
- ORCID
- Hajian, Sara
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1445-1459
- ISSN
- 1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147427185
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 40.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Repositori institucional URV (Universitat Rovira i Virgili) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
- 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
- discrimination prevention, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, sensitive attributes, classification rule mining, training data cleaning
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