Abstract
AbstractDecision-making software mainly based on Machine Learning (ML) may contain fairness issues (e.g., providing favourable treatment to certain people rather than others based on sensitive attributes such as gender or race). Various mitigation methods have been proposed to automatically repair fairness issues to achieve fairer ML software and help software engineers to create responsible software. However, existing bias mitigation methods trade accuracy for fairness (i.e., trade a reduction in accuracy for better fairness). In this paper, we present a novel search-based method for repairing ML-based decision making software to simultaneously increase both its fairness and accuracy. As far as we know, this is the first bias mitigation approach based on multi-objective search that aims to repair fairness issues without trading accuracy for binary classification methods. We apply our approach to two widely studied ML models in the software fairness literature (i.e., Logistic Regression and Decision Trees), and compare it with seven publicly available state-of-the-art bias mitigation methods by using three different fairness measurements. The results show that our approach successfully increases both accuracy and fairness for 61% of the cases studied, while the state-of-the-art always decrease accuracy when attempting to reduce bias. With our proposed approach, software engineers that previously were concerned with accuracy losses when considering fairness, are now enabled to improve the fairness of binary classification models without sacrificing accuracy.
Funder
European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference83 articles.
1. Agarwal A, Beygelzimer A, Dudík M, Langford J, Wallach H (2018) A reductions approach to fair classification. In: International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 60–69
2. Aggarwal A, Lohia P, Nagar S, Dey K, Saha D (2019) Black box fairness testing of machine learning models. In: Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering. pp. 625–635
3. Angell R, Johnson B, Brun Y, Meliou A. (2018) Themis: Automatically testing software for discrimination. In: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering. pp. 871–875
4. Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L (2016) Machine bias. ProPublica. See https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing/
5. Arcuri A, Briand L (2014) A Hitchhiker’s guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineering. STVR 24(3):219–250
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献