Assessing algorithmic fairness with unobserved protected class using data combination

Nathan Kallus, Xiaojie Mao, Angela Zhou
{"title":"Assessing algorithmic fairness with unobserved protected class using data combination","authors":"Nathan Kallus, Xiaojie Mao, Angela Zhou","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3373154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasing impact of algorithmic decisions on people's lives compels us to scrutinize their fairness and, in particular, the disparate impacts that ostensibly-color-blind algorithms can have on different groups. Examples include credit decisioning, hiring, advertising, criminal justice, personalized medicine, and targeted policymaking, where in some cases legislative or regulatory frameworks for fairness exist and define specific protected classes. In this paper we study a fundamental challenge to assessing disparate impacts, or performance disparities in general, in practice: protected class membership is often not observed in the data. This is particularly a problem in lending and healthcare. We consider the use of an auxiliary dataset, such as the US census, that includes protected class labels but not decisions or outcomes. We show that a variety of common disparity measures are generally unidentifiable aside for some unrealistic cases, providing a new perspective on the documented biases of popular proxy-based methods. We provide exact characterizations of the sharpest-possible partial identification set of disparities either under no assumptions or when we incorporate mild smoothness constraints. We further provide optimization-based algorithms for computing and visualizing these sets of simultaneously achievable pairwise disparties for assessing disparities that arise between multiple groups, which enables reliable and robust assessments - an important tool when disparity assessment can have far-reaching policy implications. We demonstrate this in two case studies with real data: mortgage lending and personalized medicine dosing.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"113","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3373154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 113

Abstract

The increasing impact of algorithmic decisions on people's lives compels us to scrutinize their fairness and, in particular, the disparate impacts that ostensibly-color-blind algorithms can have on different groups. Examples include credit decisioning, hiring, advertising, criminal justice, personalized medicine, and targeted policymaking, where in some cases legislative or regulatory frameworks for fairness exist and define specific protected classes. In this paper we study a fundamental challenge to assessing disparate impacts, or performance disparities in general, in practice: protected class membership is often not observed in the data. This is particularly a problem in lending and healthcare. We consider the use of an auxiliary dataset, such as the US census, that includes protected class labels but not decisions or outcomes. We show that a variety of common disparity measures are generally unidentifiable aside for some unrealistic cases, providing a new perspective on the documented biases of popular proxy-based methods. We provide exact characterizations of the sharpest-possible partial identification set of disparities either under no assumptions or when we incorporate mild smoothness constraints. We further provide optimization-based algorithms for computing and visualizing these sets of simultaneously achievable pairwise disparties for assessing disparities that arise between multiple groups, which enables reliable and robust assessments - an important tool when disparity assessment can have far-reaching policy implications. We demonstrate this in two case studies with real data: mortgage lending and personalized medicine dosing.
使用数据组合评估未观察到的受保护类的算法公平性
算法决策对人们生活的影响越来越大,迫使我们仔细审视它们的公平性,尤其是表面上看不清肤色的算法对不同群体可能产生的不同影响。例子包括信贷决策、招聘、广告、刑事司法、个性化医疗和有针对性的政策制定,在某些情况下,存在公平的立法或监管框架,并定义了特定的受保护阶层。在本文中,我们研究了在实践中评估不同影响或一般表现差异的基本挑战:数据中通常没有观察到受保护的阶级成员。这在贷款和医疗领域尤其成问题。我们考虑使用辅助数据集,例如美国人口普查,其中包括受保护的类别标签,但不包括决策或结果。我们表明,除了一些不现实的情况外,各种常见的差异测量通常是无法识别的,为流行的基于代理的方法的记录偏差提供了一个新的视角。我们提供了在没有假设的情况下或当我们纳入温和的平滑约束时最尖锐的可能的部分识别集的精确特征。我们进一步提供了基于优化的算法,用于计算和可视化这些同时可实现的成对差异集,以评估多个群体之间出现的差异,从而实现可靠和稳健的评估-当差异评估可能具有深远的政策影响时,这是一个重要的工具。我们用两个真实数据的案例研究证明了这一点:抵押贷款和个性化药物剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信