Cited by 64Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Taking Advantage of Multitask Learning for Fair Classification

Open access
Oneto, Luca, Doninini, Michele, Elders, Amon, Pontil, Massimiliano·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

A central goal of algorithmic fairness is to reduce bias in automated decision making. An unavoidable tension exists between accuracy gains obtained by using sensitive information as part of a statistical model, and any commitment to protect these characteristics. Often, due to biases present in the data, using the sensitive information in the functional form of a classifier improves classification accuracy. In this paper we show how it is possible to get the best of both worlds: optimize model accuracy and fairness without explicitly using the sensitive feature in the functional form of the model, thereby treating different individuals equally. Our method is based on two key ideas. On the one hand, we propose to use Multitask Learning (MTL), enhanced with fairness constraints, to jointly learn group specific classifiers that leverage information between sensitive groups. On the other hand, since learning group specific models might not be permitted, we propose to first predict the sensitive features by any learning method and then to use the predicted sensitive feature to train MTL with fairness constraints. This enables us to tackle fairness with a three-pronged approach, that is, by increasing accuracy on each group, enforcing measures of fairness during training, and protecting sensitive information during testing. Experimental results on two real datasets support our proposal, showing substantial improvements in both accuracy and fairness.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3306618.3314255

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Within sampling approaches, the application of decoupled classifiers and multitask learning has emerged.

    “Within the sampling approaches, the application of decoupled classiiers and multitask learning has emerged (see [9,52,90,225,283,307]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [225]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. A. Agarwal, A. Beygelzimer, M. Dudík, and J. Langford. 2017. A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning.
  2. D. Alabi, N. Immorlica, and A. T. Kalai. 2018. When optimizing nonlinear objec- tives is no harder than linear objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.04503 (2018). · arXiv
  3. B. Bakker and T. Heskes. 2003. Task clustering and gating for bayesian multitask learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003), 83-99.
  4. A. Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153-163.
  5. C. Dwork, N. Immorlica, A. T. Kalai, and M. D. M. Leiserson. 2018. Decoupled Classifiers for Group-Fair and Efficient Machine Learning. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency.
  6. M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oneto, L., Doninini, M., Elders, A., & Pontil, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Genoa (IT)
  • Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy
  • Italian Institute of Technology (IT)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-01-27
Pages
227-237
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895786087
Cited by
64
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
9.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, fair classification, multi-task learning, sensitive attributes, fairness constraints, automated decision-making, bias mitigation, fairness-accuracy trade-off

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