Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Interventional Fairness on Partially Known Causal Graphs: A Constrained Optimization Approach (2401.10632v2)

Published 19 Jan 2024 in cs.LG

Abstract: Fair machine learning aims to prevent discrimination against individuals or sub-populations based on sensitive attributes such as gender and race. In recent years, causal inference methods have been increasingly used in fair machine learning to measure unfairness by causal effects. However, current methods assume that the true causal graph is given, which is often not true in real-world applications. To address this limitation, this paper proposes a framework for achieving causal fairness based on the notion of interventions when the true causal graph is partially known. The proposed approach involves modeling fair prediction using a Partially Directed Acyclic Graph (PDAG), specifically, a class of causal DAGs that can be learned from observational data combined with domain knowledge. The PDAG is used to measure causal fairness, and a constrained optimization problem is formulated to balance between fairness and accuracy. Results on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of this method.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (83)
  1. A characterization of markov equivalence classes for acyclic digraphs. The Annals of Statistics, 25(2):505–541, 1997.
  2. Identifiability of path-specific effects. 2005.
  3. Christopher M Bishop. Mixture density networks. 1994.
  4. Evaluating the predictive validity of the compas risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1):21–40, 2009.
  5. Why is my classifier discriminatory? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018.
  6. Silvia Chiappa. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pp.  7801–7808, 2019.
  7. David Maxwell Chickering. Learning equivalence classes of bayesian-network structures. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:445–498, 2002a.
  8. David Maxwell Chickering. Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of machine learning research, 3(Nov):507–554, 2002b.
  9. Learning individually fair classifier with path-specific causal-effect constraint. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.  145–153. PMLR, 2021.
  10. Alexandra Chouldechova. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data, 5(2):153–163, 2017.
  11. Order-independent constraint-based causal structure learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15(1):3741–3782, 2014.
  12. Paulo Cortez and Alice Maria Gonçalves Silva. Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. 2008.
  13. Compas risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity. Northpointe Inc, 2016.
  14. Is there a trade-off between fairness and accuracy? a perspective using mismatched hypothesis testing. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.  2803–2813. PMLR, 2020.
  15. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, pp.  214–226, 2012.
  16. Structure learning of linear gaussian structural equation models with weak edges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07560, 2017.
  17. Ida with background knowledge. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.  270–279. PMLR, 2020.
  18. Emily R Flanagan. Identification and estimation of direct causal effects. 2020.
  19. The (im) possibility of fairness: Different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making. Communications of the ACM, 64(4):136–143, 2021.
  20. Causal feature selection for algorithmic fairness. 2022.
  21. Testing identifiability of causal effects. In Proceedings of the Eleventh conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp.  185–195, 1995.
  22. Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models. Frontiers in genetics, 10:524, 2019.
  23. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp.  513–520, 2007.
  24. Minimal enumeration of all possible total effects in a markov equivalence class. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.  2395–2403. PMLR, 2021.
  25. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29:3315–3323, 2016.
  26. Characterization and greedy learning of interventional markov equivalence classes of directed acyclic graphs. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):2409–2464, 2012.
  27. Discretion in hiring. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2):765–800, 2018.
  28. Nonlinear causal discovery with additive noise models. In NIPS, volume 21, pp.  689–696. Citeseer, 2008.
  29. Causal discovery of linear acyclic models with arbitrary distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.3260, 2012.
  30. Size of interventional markov equivalence classes in random dag models. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.  3234–3243. PMLR, 2019.
  31. Fairness in algorithmic decision making: An excursion through the lens of causality. In The World Wide Web Conference, pp.  2907–2914, 2019.
  32. Consumer credit-risk models via machine-learning algorithms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(11):2767–2787, 2010.
  33. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  34. Akhil Alfons Kodiyan. An overview of ethical issues in using ai systems in hiring with a case study of amazon’s ai based hiring tool. Researchgate Preprint, pp.  1–19, 2019.
  35. Making decisions that reduce discriminatory impacts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.  3591–3600. PMLR, 2019.
  36. Counterfactual fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  37. Collapsible ida: Collapsing parental sets for locally estimating possible causal effects. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.  290–299. PMLR, 2020.
  38. Estimating high-dimensional intervention effects from observational data. The Annals of Statistics, 37(6A):3133–3164, 2009.
  39. N Martinez and M Bertran. Fairness with minimal harm: A pareto-optimal approach for healthcare. NeurIPS ML4H: Machine Learning for Health, 2019.
  40. Christopher Meek. Causal inference and causal explanation with background knowledge. In Proceedings of the Eleventh conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp.  403–410, 1995.
  41. The cost of fairness in binary classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, pp.  107–118. PMLR, 2018.
  42. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
  43. Estimating the effect of joint interventions from observational data in sparse high-dimensional settings. 2017.
  44. Judea Pearl. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan kaufmann, 1988.
  45. Judea Pearl. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82(4):669–688, 1995.
  46. Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
  47. Probabilistic evaluation of sequential plans from causal models with hidden variables. In UAI, volume 95, pp.  444–453. Citeseer, 1995.
  48. Judea Pearl et al. Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversityPress, 19, 2000.
  49. Complete graphical characterization and construction of adjustment sets in markov equivalence classes of ancestral graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(220):1–62, 2018.
  50. Emilija Perkovic. Identifying causal effects in maximally oriented partially directed acyclic graphs. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.  530–539. PMLR, 2020.
  51. A complete generalized adjustment criterion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.  682–691, 2015.
  52. Interpreting and using cpdags with background knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2017), pp.  ID–120. AUAI Press, 2017.
  53. Identifiability of gaussian structural equation models with equal error variances. Biometrika, 101(1):219–228, 2014.
  54. Causal discovery with continuous additive noise models. 2014.
  55. Tetrad—a toolbox for causal discovery. In 8th International Workshop on Climate Informatics, 2018.
  56. James Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical modelling, 7(9-12):1393–1512, 1986.
  57. Causal inference in partially linear structural equation models. The Annals of Statistics, 46(6A):2904–2938, 2018.
  58. When worlds collide: integrating different counterfactual assumptions in fairness. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 30. NIPS Proceedings, 2017.
  59. Interventional fairness: Causal database repair for algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, pp.  793–810, 2019.
  60. The tetrad project: Constraint based aids to causal model specification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(1):65–117, 1998.
  61. Data augmentation for discrimination prevention and bias disambiguation. pp.  358–364, 02 2020. doi: 10.1145/3375627.3375865.
  62. A linear non-gaussian acyclic model for causal discovery. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7(10), 2006.
  63. Constructing bayesian network models of gene expression networks from microarray data. 2000a.
  64. An algorithm for fast recovery of sparse causal graphs. Social science computer review, 9(1):62–72, 1991.
  65. Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2000b.
  66. Latanya Sweeney. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Communications of the ACM, 56(5):44–54, 2013.
  67. Permutation-based causal inference algorithms with interventions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017.
  68. The fairness-accuracy pareto front. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 15(3):287–302, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11560. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sam.11560.
  69. Unlocking fairness: a trade-off revisited. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  70. On efficient adjustment in causal graphs. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):9956–10000, 2020.
  71. On discrimination discovery and removal in ranked data using causal graph. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp.  2536–2544, 2018.
  72. Counterfactual fairness: Unidentification, bound and algorithm. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019a.
  73. Pc-fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019b.
  74. Discriminative but not discriminatory: A comparison of fairness definitions under different worldviews. ArXiv, abs/1808.08619, 2018.
  75. Equality of opportunity in classification: A causal approach. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.  3675–3685, 2018a.
  76. Fairness in decision-making—the causal explanation formula. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018b.
  77. K Zhang and A Hyvärinen. On the identifiability of the post-nonlinear causal model. In 25th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2009), pp.  647–655. AUAI Press, 2009.
  78. Lu Zhang and Xintao Wu. Anti-discrimination learning: a causal modeling-based framework. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 4(1):1–16, 2017.
  79. A causal framework for discovering and removing direct and indirect discrimination. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017.
  80. Causal modeling-based discrimination discovery and removal: criteria, bounds, and algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 31(11):2035–2050, 2018.
  81. Inherent tradeoffs in learning fair representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  82. Indre Zliobaite. On the relation between accuracy and fairness in binary classification. In The 2nd workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML) at ICML’15, 2015.
  83. Counterfactual fairness with partially known causal graph. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Aoqi Zuo (3 papers)
  2. Yiqing Li (12 papers)
  3. Susan Wei (16 papers)
  4. Mingming Gong (135 papers)
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets