CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 36Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataMachine Learning and Data Classification

Noise-tolerant fair classification

Open access
Lamy, Alexandre Louis, Zhong, Ziyuan, Menon, Aditya Krishna, Verma, Nakul·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1901.10837arXiv 1901.10837
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Fairness-aware learning involves designing algorithms that do not discriminate with respect to some sensitive feature (e.g., race or gender). Existing work on the problem operates under the assumption that the sensitive feature available in one's training sample is perfectly reliable. This assumption may be violated in many real-world cases: for example, respondents to a survey may choose to conceal or obfuscate their group identity out of fear of potential discrimination. This poses the question of whether one can still learn fair classifiers given noisy sensitive features. In this paper, we answer the question in the affirmative: we show that if one measures fairness using the mean-difference score, and sensitive features are subject to noise from the mutually contaminated learning model, then owing to a simple identity we only need to change the desired fairness-tolerance. The requisite tolerance can be estimated by leveraging existing noise-rate estimators from the label noise literature. We finally show that our procedure is empirically effective on two case-studies involving sensitive feature censoring.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1901.10837

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Under the mutually contaminated learning model, measures of demographic parity and equalized odds computed on observed data are equal to true metrics up to a scaling factor proportional to the value of the noise.

    “Here, measures of demographic parity and equalized odds computed on the observed data are equal to the true metrics up to a scaling factor, which is proportional to the value of the noise [71]; if the noise rates are known, then the true metrics can be directly estimated.”

    From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [71]

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: 51

  1. Adler, P., Falk, C., Friedler, S. A., Nix, T., Rybeck, G., Scheidegger, C., Smith, B., and Venkatasubramanian, S. Auditing black-box models for indirect influence. Knowl. Inf. Syst. , 54(1):95-122, January 2018. ISSN 0219-1377.
  2. Agarwal, A., Beygelzimer, A., Dudk, M., Langford, J., and Wallach, H. A reductions approach to fair classification. In Dy, J. G. and Krause, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80, pp. 60-69, Stanford, CA, 2018. JMLR.
  3. Angluin, D. and Laird, P. Learning from noisy examples. Machine Learning , 2(4):343-370, Apr 1988. ISSN 1573-0565.
  4. Awasthi, P., Balcan, M.-F., Haghtalab, N., and Urner, R. Efficient learning of linear separators under bounded noise. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT) , volume 40, pp. 167-190, 2015.
  5. Blum, A. and Mitchell, T. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT) , pp. 92-100, 1998.
  6. Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pp. 77-91, 2018.
  7. Calders, T. and Verwer, S. Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 21(2):277-292, Sep 2010. ISSN 1573-756X.
  8. Calmon, F., Wei, D., Vinzamuri, B., Natesan Ramamurthy, K., and Varshney, K. R. Optimized pre-processing for discrimination prevention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pp. 3992-4001, 2017.
  9. Chan, P. K. and Stolfo, S. J. Toward scalable learning with non-uniform class and cost distributions: A case study in credit card fraud detection. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD'98, pp. 164-168, 1998.
  10. Charoenphakdee, N., Lee, J., and Sugiyama, M. On symmetric losses for learning from corrupted labels. In ICML , 2019.
  11. Cotter, A., Gupta, M. R., Jiang, H., Srebro, N., Sridharan, K., Wang, S., Woodworth, B. E., and You, S. Training well-generalizing classifiers for fairness metrics and other data-dependent constraints. CoRR , abs/1807.00028, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.00028 . · arXiv
  12. del Barrio, E., Gamboa, F., Gordaliza, P., and Loubes, J.-M. Obtaining fairness using optimal transport theory. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1806.03195, June 2018. · arXiv
  13. Donini, M., Oneto, L., Ben-David, S., Shawe-Taylor, J. S., and Pontil, M. Empirical risk minimization under fairness constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 , pp. 2796-2806, 2018.
  14. Dwork, C. Differential privacy. In Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., and Wegener, I. (eds.), Automata, Languages and Programming , pp. 1-12, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-35908-1.
  15. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., and Zemel, R. S. Fairness through awareness. CoRR , abs/1104.3913, 2011. · arXiv
  16. Dwork, C., Immorlica, N., Kalai, A. T., and Leiserson, M. Decoupled classifiers for group-fair and efficient machine learning. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pp. 119-133, 2018.
  17. Elkan, C. and Noto, K. Learning classifiers from only positive and unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 213-220, 2008.
  18. Gupta, M. R., Cotter, A., Fard, M. M., and Wang, S. Proxy fairness. CoRR , abs/1806.11212, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11212 . · arXiv
  19. Hardt, M., Price, E., and Srebro, N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS'16, pp. 3323-3331, USA, 2016. ISBN 978-1-5108-3881-9.
  20. Hashimoto, T. B., Srivastava, M., Namkoong, H., and Liang, P. Fairness without demographics in repeated loss minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08010 , 2018. · arXiv
  21. Heidari, H., Loi, M., Gummadi, K. P., and Krause, A. A moral framework for understanding of fair ml through economic models of equality of opportunity. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAT*) , January 2019.
  22. Jagielski, M., Kearns, M., Mao, J., Oprea, A., Roth, A., Sharifi-Malvajerdi, S., and Ullman, J. Differentially private fair learning. 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02696.pdf . · arXiv
  23. Jain, S., White, M., and Radivojac, P. Recovering true classifier performance in positive-unlabeled learning. In AAAI , 2017.
  24. Katz-Samuels, J., Blanchard, G., and Scott, C. Decontamination of mutual contamination models. JMLR , 20 (41):1-57, 2019.
  25. Kilbertus, N., Gascon, A., Kusner, M., Veale, M., Gummadi, K., and Weller, A. Blind justice: Fairness with encrypted sensitive attributes. In Dy, J. and Krause, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 2630-2639, Stockholmsmssan, Stockholm Sweden, 10-15 Jul 2018. PMLR. URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/ v80/kilbertus18a.html .
  26. Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., and Rothblum, G. N. Fairness through computationally-bounded awareness. CoRR , abs/1803.03239, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03239 . · arXiv
  27. Kiryo, R., Niu, G., du Plessis, M., and Sugiyama, M. Positive-unlabeled learning with non-negative risk estimator. In NIPS . 2017.
  28. Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C., and Silva, R. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pp. 4066-4076, 2017.
  29. Lipton, Z., McAuley, J., and Chouldechova, A. Does mitigating ml's impact disparity require treatment disparity? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 8136-8146, 2018.
  30. Liu, T. and Tao, D. Classification with noisy labels by importance reweighting. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 38:447-461, 2016.
  31. Lum, K. and Johndrow, J. E. A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms. CoRR , abs/1610.08077, 2016. · arXiv
  32. Menon, A. K., Narasimhan, H., Agarwal, S., and Chawla, S. On the statistical consistency of algorithms for binary classification under class imbalance. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2013.
  33. Menon, A. K., van Rooyen, B., Ong, C. S., and Williamson, R. C. Learning from corrupted binary labels via class-probability estimation. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning , 2015.
  34. Mohri, M., Sivek, G., and Suresh, A. T. Agnostic federated learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2019.
  35. Mozannar, H., Ohannessian, M. I., and Srebro, N. Fair learning with private data. In NeurIPS 2019 workshop on machine learning with guarantees , 2019. URL https://drive.google.com/file/ d/1dqEexwzlSLK5XPckM00Q7Lggfh5o6saB/view .
  36. Natarajan, N., Tewari, A., Dhillon, I. S., and Ravikumar, P. Learning with noisy labels. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , dec 2013.
  37. Northcutt, C. G., Wu, T., and Chuang, I. L. Learning with confident examples: Rank pruning for robust classification with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , UAI'17. AUAI Press, 2017.
  38. Pedreshi, D., Ruggieri, S., and Turini, F. Discrimination-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 560-568. ACM, 2008.
  39. Ramaswamy, H. G., Scott, C., and Tewari, A. Mixture proportion estimation via kernel embedding of distributions. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 48 , ICML'16, pp. 2052-2060. JMLR.org, 2016.
  40. Scott, C., Blanchard, G., , and Handy, G. Classification with asymmetric label noise: Consistency and maximal denoising. In Conference on Learning Theory (COLT) , volume 30, pp. 489511, 2013a.
  41. Scott, C., Blanchard, G., and Handy, G. Classification with asymmetric label noise: Consistency and maximal denoising. In Shalev-Shwartz, S. and Steinwart, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Learning Theory , volume 30 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 489-511, Princeton, NJ, USA, 12-14 Jun 2013b. PMLR.
  42. Speicher, T., Heidari, H., Grgic-Hlaca, N., Gummadi, K. P., Singla, A., Weller, A., and Zafar, M. B. A unified approach to quantifying algorithmic unfairness: Measuring individual & group unfairness via inequality indices. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , KDD '18, pp. 2239-2248, 2018. ISBN 978-1-4503-5552-0.
  43. van Rooyen, B. Machine Learning via Transitions . PhD thesis, The Australian National University, 2015.
  44. van Rooyen, B. and Williamson, R. C. A theory of learning with corrupted labels. JMLR , 18(228):1-50, 2018.
  45. Ward, G., Hastie, T., Barry, S., Elith, J., and Leathwick, J. R. Presence-Only Data and the { EM } Algorithm. Biometrics , 65(2):554-563, 2009.
  46. Williamson, R. C. and Menon, A. K. Fairness risk measures. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA , pp. 67866797, 2019.
  47. Woodworth, B., Gunasekar, S., Ohannessian, M. I., and Srebro, N. Learning non-discriminatory predictors. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Learning Theory , volume 65, pp. 1920-1953, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 07-10 Jul 2017. PMLR.
  48. Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., Gummadi, K., and Weller, A. From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pp. 229-239, 2017a.
  49. Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., and Gummadi, K. P. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pp. 1171-1180, 2017b.
  50. Zemel, R., Wu, Y., Swersky, K., Pitassi, T., and Dwork, C. Learning fair representations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 325-333, 2013.
  51. Zhang, D. and Lee, W. S. Learning classifiers without negative examples: A reduction approach. In 2008 Third International Conference on Digital Information Management , pp. 638-643, Nov 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lamy, A. L., Zhong, Z., Menon, A. K., & Verma, N.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
32
Pages
294-305
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1901.10837
arXiv
1901.10837
OpenAlex
W2918374197
Cited by
36
References
3
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
fair classification, fairness-aware learning, label noise, identity concealment

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