Effective complements to human judgment, artificial intelligence techniques have started to aid human decisions in complicated social problems across the world. In the context of United States for instance, automated ML DL classification models offer complements to human decisions in determining Medicaid eligibility. However, given the limitations in ML DL model design, these algorithms may fail to leverage various factors for decision making, resulting in improper decisions that allocate resources to individuals who may not be in the most need. In view of such an issue, we propose in this paper the method of , based on the legal doctrine of , to improve the fairness of regressive classifiers. Experiments on American Community Survey dataset demonstrate that our method could be easily adapted to a variety of regressive classification models to boost their fairness in deciding Medicaid Eligibility, while maintaining high levels of classification accuracy.
@cite_0: We study the question of fair clustering under the disparate impact doctrine, where each protected class must have approximately equal representation in every cluster. We formulate the fair clustering problem under both the k-center and the k-median objectives, and show that even with two protected classes the problem is challenging, as the optimum solution can violate common conventions---for instance a point may no longer be assigned to its nearest cluster center! En route we introduce the concept of fairlets, which are minimal sets that satisfy fair representation while approximately preserving the clustering objective. We show that any fair clustering problem can be decomposed into first finding good fairlets, and then using existing machinery for traditional clustering algorithms. While finding good fairlets can be NP-hard, we proceed to obtain efficient approximation algorithms based on minimum cost flow. We empirically demonstrate the by quantifying the value of fair clustering on real-world datasets with sensitive attributes.
@cite_1: What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender) and an explicit description of the process. When computers are involved, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the process, we propose making inferences based on the data it uses. We present four contributions. First, we link disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on how well the protected class can be predicted from the other attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.
The second group has centered on algorithms to achieve fairness. Along the route of disparate impact, @cite_1 has described algorithms to spot the presence of disparate impact through Support Vector Machine, while @cite_0 applied the notion of disparate impact to design an algorithm that achieves balance in unsupervised clustering algorithms. @cite_0 also introduces the notion of , which we have used in our paper.