FAHT: An Adaptive Fairness-aware Decision Tree Classifier
Open accessAbstract
Automated data-driven decision-making systems are ubiquitous across a wide spread of online as well as offline services. These systems, depend on sophisticated learning algorithms and available data, to optimize the service function for decision support assistance. However, there is a growing concern about the accountability and fairness of the employed models by the fact that often the available historic data is intrinsically discriminatory, i.e., the proportion of members sharing one or more sensitive attributes is higher than the proportion in the population as a whole when receiving positive classification, which leads to a lack of fairness in decision support system. A number of fairness-aware learning methods have been proposed to handle this concern. However, these methods tackle fairness as a static problem and do not take the evolution of the underlying stream population into consideration. In this paper, we introduce a learning mechanism to design a fair classifier for online stream based decision-making. Our learning model, FAHT (Fairness-Aware Hoeffding Tree), is an extension of the well-known Hoeffding Tree algorithm for decision tree induction over streams, that also accounts for fairness. Our experiments show that our algorithm is able to deal with discrimination in streaming environments, while maintaining a moderate predictive performance over the stream.
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?
Fairness-aware performance metrics simultaneously evaluate accuracy and fairness.
“Simultaneously evaluates accuracy and fairness”
From AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
Fairness-aware performance metrics provide a holistic view of fairness model performance.
“Provides a holistic view of fairness model performance”
From AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
The choice of fairness metric may not fully capture desired notions of fairness.
“Choice of fairness metric desired notions of fairness may not fully capture”
From AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
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 21 · Cited by 85
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Bifet and Gavalda, 2007] Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavalda. Learning from time-changing data with adaptive window- ing. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international con- ference on data mining, pages 443-448. SIAM, 2007.
- Calders and Verwer, 2010] Toon Calders and Sicco Ver- wer. Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 21(2):277-292, 2010.
- Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. Automated experiments on ad privacy set- tings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2015(1):92-112, 2015.
- Sara Hajian, Francesco Bonchi, and Carlos Castillo. Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 2125-2126. ACM, 2016.
- Sweeney, 2013] Latanya Sweeney. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue, 11(3):10, 2013.
- Verma and Rubin, 2018] Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. Fair- ness definitions explained. In 2018 IEEE/ACM Interna- tional Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare), pages 1-7. IEEE, 2018.
- Authors
- Zhang, W., & Ntoutsi, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
- Leibniz University Hannover (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2019-08
- Pages
- 1480-1486
- OpenAlex
- W2965366403
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 9.91
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Stream Mining Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- fairness-aware learning, Hoeffding tree, decision tree induction, data streams, algorithmic discrimination, sensitive attributes, adaptive classifier, online decision making
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