# Fairness in Machine Learning¶

## Fairness of AI systems¶

AI systems can behave unfairly for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is because of societal biases reflected in the training data and in the decisions made during the development and deployment of these systems. In other cases, AI systems behave unfairly not because of societal biases, but because of characteristics of the data (e.g., too few data points about some group of people) or characteristics of the systems themselves. It can be hard to distinguish between these reasons, especially since they are not mutually exclusive and often exacerbate one another. Therefore, we define whether an AI system is behaving unfairly in terms of its impact on people — i.e., in terms of harms — and not in terms of specific causes, such as societal biases, or in terms of intent, such as prejudice.

**Usage of the word bias.** Since we define fairness in terms of harms
rather than specific causes (such as societal biases), we avoid the usage of
the words *bias* or *debiasing* in describing the functionality of Fairlearn.

## Types of harms¶

There are many types of harms (see, e.g., the keynote by K. Crawford at NeurIPS 2017). The Fairlearn package is most applicable to two kinds of harms:

*Allocation harms*can occur when AI systems extend or withhold opportunities, resources, or information. Some of the key applications are in hiring, school admissions, and lending.*Quality-of-service harms*can occur when a system does not work as well for one person as it does for another, even if no opportunities, resources, or information are extended or withheld. Examples include varying accuracy in face recognition, document search, or product recommendation.

## Fairness assessment and unfairness mitigation¶

In Fairlearn, we provide tools to assess fairness of predictors for classification and regression. We also provide tools that mitigate unfairness in classification and regression. In both assessment and mitigation scenarios, fairness is quantified using disparity metrics as we describe below.

### Group fairness, sensitive features¶

There are many approaches to conceptualizing fairness. In Fairlearn, we follow
the approach known as group fairness, which asks: *Which groups of individuals
are at risk for experiencing harms?*

The relevant groups (also called subpopulations) are defined using **sensitive
features** (or sensitive attributes), which are passed to a Fairlearn
estimator as a vector or a matrix called `sensitive_features`

(even if it is
only one feature). The term suggests that the system designer should be
sensitive to these features when assessing group fairness. Although these
features may sometimes have privacy implications (e.g., gender or age) in
other cases they may not (e.g., whether or not someone is a native speaker of
a particular language). Moreover, the word sensitive does not imply that
these features should not be used to make predictions – indeed, in some cases
it may be better to include them.

Fairness literature also uses the term *protected attribute* in a similar
sense as sensitive feature. The term is based on anti-discrimination laws
that define specific *protected classes*. Since we seek to apply group
fairness in a wider range of settings, we avoid this term.

### Parity constraints¶

Group fairness is typically formalized by a set of constraints on the behavior
of the predictor called **parity constraints** (also called criteria). Parity
constraints require that some aspect (or aspects) of the predictor behavior be
comparable across the groups defined by sensitive features.

Let \(X\) denote a feature vector used for predictions, \(A\) be a single sensitive feature (such as age or race), and \(Y\) be the true label. Parity constraints are phrased in terms of expectations with respect to the distribution over \((X,A,Y)\). For example, in Fairlearn, we consider the following types of parity constraints.

*Binary classification*:

*Demographic parity*(also known as*statistical parity*): A classifier \(h\) satisfies demographic parity under a distribution over \((X, A, Y)\) if its prediction \(h(X)\) is statistically independent of the sensitive feature \(A\). This is equivalent to \(\E[h(X) \given A=a] = \E[h(X)] \quad \forall a\). 6*Equalized odds*: A classifier \(h\) satisfies equalized odds under a distribution over \((X, A, Y)\) if its prediction \(h(X)\) is conditionally independent of the sensitive feature \(A\) given the label \(Y\). This is equivalent to \(\E[h(X) \given A=a, Y=y] = \E[h(X) \given Y=y] \quad \forall a, y\). 6*Equal opportunity*: a relaxed version of equalized odds that only considers conditional expectations with respect to positive labels, i.e., \(Y=1\). 5

*Regression*:

*Demographic parity*: A predictor \(f\) satisfies demographic parity under a distribution over \((X, A, Y)\) if \(f(X)\) is independent of the sensitive feature \(A\). This is equivalent to \(\P[f(X) \geq z \given A=a] = \P[f(X) \geq z] \quad \forall a, z\). 4*Bounded group loss*: A predictor \(f\) satisfies bounded group loss at level \(\zeta\) under a distribution over \((X, A, Y)\) if \(\E[loss(Y, f(X)) \given A=a] \leq \zeta \quad \forall a\). 4

Above, demographic parity seeks to mitigate allocation harms, whereas bounded group loss primarily seeks to mitigate quality-of-service harms. Equalized odds and equal opportunity can be used as a diagnostic for both allocation harms as well as quality-of-service harms.

### Disparity metrics, group metrics¶

Disparity metrics evaluate how far a given predictor departs from satisfying a parity constraint. They can either compare the behavior across different groups in terms of ratios or in terms of differences. For example, for binary classification:

*Demographic parity difference*is defined as \((\max_a \E[h(X) \given A=a]) - (\min_a \E[h(X) \given A=a])\).*Demographic parity ratio*is defined as \(\dfrac{\min_a \E[h(X) \given A=a]}{\max_a \E[h(X) \given A=a]}\).

The Fairlearn package provides the functionality to convert common accuracy
and error metrics from scikit-learn to *group metrics*, i.e., metrics that
are evaluated on the entire data set and also on each group individually.
Additionally, group metrics yield the minimum and maximum metric value and for
which groups these values were observed, as well as the difference and ratio
between the maximum and the minimum values. For more information refer to the
subpackage `fairlearn.metrics`

.

References:

- 4(1,2)
Agarwal, Dudik, Wu “Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based Algorithms”, ICML, 2019.

- 5
Hardt, Price, Srebro “Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning”, NIPS, 2016.

- 6(1,2)
Agarwal, Beygelzimer, Dudik, Langford, Wallach “A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification”, ICML, 2018.