Fair-by-design explainable models for prediction of recidivism
Open accessAbstract
Recidivism prediction provides decision makers with an assessment of the likelihood that a criminal defendant will reoffend that can be used in pre-trial decision-making. It can also be used for prediction of locations where crimes most occur, profiles that are more likely to commit violent crimes. While such instruments are gaining increasing popularity, their use is controversial as they may present potential discriminatory bias in the risk assessment. In this paper we propose a new fair-by-design approach to predict recidivism. It is prototype-based, learns locally and extracts empirically the data distribution. The results show that the proposed method is able to reduce the bias and provide human interpretable rules to assist specialists in the explanation of the given results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A fair-by-design approach develops ML models with less bias and human-comprehensible rules, demonstrated on the COMPAS recidivism dataset.
“Another example is [399], where the authors propose a fair-by-design approach in order to develop ML models that jointly have less bias and include as explanations human comprehensible rules.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [399]
Cites
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao5580 · Cited by 1,071 · see citing works
Johndrow, J. E., & Lum, K. (2019) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1201 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review
Angelov, P. P., Soares, E. A., Jiang, R., Arnold, N. I., & Atkinson, P. M. (2021) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1424 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Self-citationAnik, A. I., & Bunt, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445736 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
- Authors
- Soares, E., & Angelov, P.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Technical University of Sofia (BG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1910.02043
- OpenAlex
- W2977375814
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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 › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- recidivism prediction, algorithmic fairness, FAIR-by-design, explainable models, prototype learning, local learning, data distribution estimation, risk assessment, interpretable rules
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
