Learning Optimal and Fair Decision Trees for Non-Discriminative Decision-Making
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- Altman, A. 2016. Discrimination. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2016 edition.
- 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.
- 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.
- Byrnes, N. 2016. Artificial intolerance. MIT Tech. Review.
- Kamiran, F., and Calders, T. 2009. Classifying without discrimi- nating. In 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Con- trol and Communication, 1-6.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.aaai.org/ (unspecified)
- 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