Fair Decision Making via Automated Repair of Decision Trees

被引:2
|
作者
Zhang, Jiang [1 ]
Beschastnikh, Ivan [2 ]
Mechtaev, Sergey [3 ]
Roychoudhury, Abhik [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Univ Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] UCL, London, England
来源
2022 IEEE/ACM INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON EQUITABLE DATA & TECHNOLOGY (FAIRWARE 2022) | 2022年
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
algorithmic fairness; automated program repair; decision trees;
D O I
10.1145/3524491.3527306
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Data-driven decision-making allows more resource allocation tasks to be done by programs. Unfortunately, real-life training datasets may capture human biases, and the learned models can be unfair. To resolve this, one could either train a new, fair model from scratch or repair an existing unfair model. The former approach is liable for unbounded semantic difference, hence is unsuitable for social or legislative decisions. Meanwhile, the scalability of state-of-the-art model repair techniques is unsatisfactory. In this paper, we aim to automatically repair unfair decision models by converting any decision tree or random forest into a fair one with respect to a specific dataset and sensitive attributes. We built the FairRepair tool, inspired by automated program repair techniques for traditional programs. It uses a MaxSMT solver to decide which paths in the decision tree could be flipped or refined, with both fairness and semantic difference as hard constraints. Our approach is sound and complete, and the output repair always satisfies the desired fairness and semantic difference requirements. FairRepair is able to repair an unfair decision tree on the well-known COMPAS dataset [2] in 1 minute on average, achieving 90.3% fairness and only 2.3% semantic difference. We compared FairRepair with 4 state-of-the-art fairness learning algorithms [10, 13, 16, 18]. While achieving similar fairness by training new models, they incur 8.9% to 13.5% semantic difference. These results showthat FairRepair is capable of repairing an unfair model while maintaining the accuracy and incurring small semantic difference.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 16
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Using Decision Trees in Economizer Repair Decision Making
    Sun, Yong
    Ma, Lin
    Robinson, Warwick
    Fidge, Colin
    2010 PROGNOSTICS AND SYSTEM HEALTH MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, 2010, : 139 - +
  • [2] Automated decision-making with DMN: from decision trees to decision tables
    Etinger, D.
    Simic, S. D.
    Buljubasic, L.
    2019 42ND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONICS AND MICROELECTRONICS (MIPRO), 2019, : 1309 - 1313
  • [3] Learning Optimal and Fair Decision Trees for Non-Discriminative Decision-Making
    Aghaei, Sina
    Azizi, Mohammad Javad
    Vayanos, Phebe
    THIRTY-THIRD AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / THIRTY-FIRST INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE / NINTH AAAI SYMPOSIUM ON EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2019, : 1418 - 1426
  • [4] DECISION TREES AND DECISION-MAKING
    QUINLAN, JR
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS, 1990, 20 (02): : 339 - 346
  • [5] DECISION TREES FOR DECISION-MAKING
    MAGEE, JF
    HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 1964, 42 (04) : 126 - 138
  • [6] Synthesizing Fair Decision Trees via Iterative Constraint Solving
    Wang, Jingbo
    Li, Yannan
    Wang, Chao
    COMPUTER AIDED VERIFICATION (CAV 2022), PT II, 2022, 13372 : 364 - 385
  • [7] Fair Public Decision Making
    Conitzer, Vincent
    Freeman, Rupert
    Shah, Nisarg
    EC'17: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 ACM CONFERENCE ON ECONOMICS AND COMPUTATION, 2017, : 629 - 646
  • [8] Decision trees and automatic learning in medical decision making
    Zorman, M
    Kokol, P
    INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, (IIS'97) PROCEEDINGS, 1997, : 37 - 41
  • [9] Automated decision-making
    Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov
    FORESIGHT, 2023, 25 (01): : 4 - 19
  • [10] Regulating Automated Decision Making
    Larus, James
    Hankin, Chris
    COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2018, 61 (08) : 5 - 5