Cited by 135Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Data Mining Algorithms and Applications

Learning Optimal and Fair Decision Trees for Non-Discriminative Decision-Making

Open access
Aghaei, Sina, Azizi, Mohammad Javad, Vayanos, Phebe·2019·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In recent years, automated data-driven decision-making systems have enjoyed a tremendous success in a variety of fields (e.g., to make product recommendations, or to guide the production of entertainment). More recently, these algorithms are increasingly being used to assist socially sensitive decisionmaking (e.g., to decide who to admit into a degree program or to prioritize individuals for public housing). Yet, these automated tools may result in discriminative decision-making in the sense that they may treat individuals unfairly or unequally based on membership to a category or a minority, resulting in disparate treatment or disparate impact and violating both moral and ethical standards. This may happen when the training dataset is itself biased (e.g., if individuals belonging to a particular group have historically been discriminated upon). However, it may also happen when the training dataset is unbiased, if the errors made by the system affect individuals belonging to a category or minority differently (e.g., if misclassification rates for Blacks are higher than for Whites). In this paper, we unify the definitions of unfairness across classification and regression. We propose a versatile mixed-integer optimization framework for learning optimal and fair decision trees and variants thereof to prevent disparate treatment and/or disparate impact as appropriate. This translates to a flexible schema for designing fair and interpretable policies suitable for socially sensitive decision-making. We conduct extensive computational studies that show that our framework improves the state-of-the-art in the field (which typically relies on heuristics) to yield non-discriminative decisions at lower cost to overall accuracy.

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 · 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011418

Cites

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?

  • When extending the classifier's (convex) loss function with fairness terms, researchers typically seek to balance fairness and accuracy.

    “When extending the classiier's (convex) loss function with fairness terms, researchers typically seek to balance fairness and accuracy (e.g.[5,26,36,52,57,98,119,141,153,168,208,314]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

  • ML Fairness Gym is part of Google's Open AI project, a simulation toolkit to study long-run impacts of ML decisions, and analyzes how algorithms that take fairness into consideration change the underlying data (previous classifications) over time.

    “ML Fairness Gym Part of Google's Open AI project, a simulation toolkit to study long-run impacts of ML decisions.5 Analyzes how algorithms that take fairness into consideration change the underlying data (previous classiications) over time (see e.g.[4,5,8,10,12]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 135

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Altman, A. 2016. Discrimination. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2016 edition.
  2. Bilal Zafar, M.; Valera, I.; Gomez Rodriguez, M.; and Gummadi, K. P. 2016. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment: Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment. ArXiv e-prints.
  3. Breiman, L.; Friedman, J.; Stone, C.; and Olshen, R. 1984. Clas- sification and Regression Trees. The Wadsworth and Brooks- Cole statistics-probability series. Taylor & Francis.
  4. Byrnes, N. 2016. Artificial intolerance. MIT Tech. Review.
  5. Kamiran, F., and Calders, T. 2009. Classifying without discrimi- nating. In 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Con- trol and Communication, 1-6.
  6. Lakkaraju, H.; Bach, S. H.; and Jure, L. 2016. Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Con- ference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1675-1684.
  7. Lou, Y.; Caruana, R.; Gehrke, J.; and Hooker, G. 2013a. Ac- curate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Pro- ceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 623-631. ACM.
  8. Wang, T.; Rudin, C.; Doshi-Velez, F.; Liu, Y.; Klampfl, E.; and MacNeille, P. 2017. A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research 18(70):1-37.

Authors
Aghaei, S., Azizi, M. J., & Vayanos, P.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
33
Issue
01
Pages
1418-1426
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2904239671
Cited by
135
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
15.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
University of Southern California
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, indirect discrimination, disparate treatment, mixed integer programming, interpretable policies, automated decision-making, training data bias

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