The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data mining for discrimination discovery
Open accessAbstract
In the context of civil rights law, discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of people based on membership to a category or a minority, without regard to individual merit. Discrimination in credit, mortgage, insurance, labor market, and education has been investigated by researchers in economics and human sciences. With the advent of automatic decision support systems, such as credit scoring systems, the ease of data collection opens several challenges to data analysts for the fight against discrimination. In this article, we introduce the problem of discovering discrimination through data mining in a dataset of historical decision records, taken by humans or by automatic systems. We formalize the processes of direct and indirect discrimination discovery by modelling protected-by-law groups and contexts where discrimination occurs in a classification rule based syntax. Basically, classification rules extracted from the dataset allow for unveiling contexts of unlawful discrimination, where the degree of burden over protected-by-law groups is formalized by an extension of the lift measure of a classification rule. In direct discrimination, the extracted rules can be directly mined in search of discriminatory contexts. In indirect discrimination, the mining process needs some background knowledge as a further input, for example, census data, that combined with the extracted rules might allow for unveiling contexts of discriminatory decisions. A strategy adopted for combining extracted classification rules with background knowledge is called an inference model. In this article, we propose two inference models and provide automatic procedures for their implementation. An empirical assessment of our results is provided on the German credit dataset and on the PKDD Discovery Challenge 1999 financial dataset.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Classification Methods in Consumer Credit Scoring: A Review
Hand, D. J., & Henley, W. E. (1997) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.1997.00078.x · Cited by 1,042
Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place
Riach, P. A., & Rich, J. (2002) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00080 · Cited by 911
Cited by
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 · Cited by 1,631
Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2012) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-011-0463-8 · Cited by 1,305
Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification.
Calders, T., & Verwer, S. (2010) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-010-0190-x · Cited by 764
A Methodology for Direct and Indirect Discrimination Prevention in Data Mining
Hajian, S., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.72 · Cited by 312
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2014) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888913000039 · Cited by 288
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., & Turini, F.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-40
- ISSN
- 1556-4681 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-472X
- OpenAlex
- W1999380087
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Data mining for discrimination discovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1754428.1754432
- The paper
- Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., & Turini, F. (2010). Data mining for discrimination discovery. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data. https://doi.org/10.1145/1754428.1754432
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.