In the last years many accurate decision support systems have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness sometimes at the cost of scarifying accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a consequence, delineating explicitly or implicitly its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this paper is to provide a classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system. Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open black box models should also be useful for putting the many research open questions in perspective.

In the context of civil rights law, discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of people based on membership to a category or a minority, without regard to individual merit. Rules extracted from databases by data mining techniques, such as classification or association rules, when used for decision tasks such as benefit or credit approval, can be discriminatory in the above sense. In this paper, the notion of discriminatory classification rules is introduced and studied. Providing a guarantee of non-discrimination is shown to be a non trivial task. A naïve approach, like taking away all discriminatory attributes, is shown to be not enough when other background knowledge is available. Our approach leads to a precise formulation of the redlining problem along with a formal result relating discriminatory rules with apparently safe ones by means of background knowledge. An empirical assessment of the results on the German credit dataset is also provided.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems are widely employed nowadays to make decisions that have far-reaching impact on individuals and society. Their decisions might affect everyone, everywhere, and anytime, entailing concerns about potential human rights issues. Therefore, it is necessary to move beyond traditional AI algorithms optimized for predictive performance and embed ethical and legal principles in their design, training, and deployment to ensure social good while still benefiting from the huge potential of the AI technology. The goal of this survey is to provide a broad multidisciplinary overview of the area of bias in AI systems, focusing on technical challenges and solutions as well as to suggest new research directions towards approaches well-grounded in a legal frame. In this survey, we focus on data-driven AI, as a large part of AI is powered nowadays by (big) data and powerful machine learning algorithms. If otherwise not specified, we use the general term bias to describe problems related to the gathering or processing of data that might result in prejudiced decisions on the bases of demographic features such as race, sex, and so forth.This article is categorized under:

With the support of the legally-grounded methodology of situation testing, we tackle the problems of discrimination discovery and prevention from a dataset of historical decisions by adopting a variant of k-NN classification. A tuple is labeled as discriminated if we can observe a significant difference of treatment among its neighbors belonging to a protected-by-law group and its neighbors not belonging to it. Discrimination discovery boils down to extracting a classification model from the labeled tuples. Discrimination prevention is tackled by changing the decision value for tuples labeled as discriminated before training a classifier. The approach of this paper overcomes legal weaknesses and technical limitations of existing proposals.

Discrimination in social sense (e.g., against minorities and disadvantaged groups) is the subject of many laws worldwide, and it has been extensively studied in the social and economic sciences. We tackle the problem of determining, given a dataset of historical decision records, a precise measure of the degree of discrimination suffered by a given group (e.g., an etnic minority) in a given context (e.g., a geographic area) with respect to the decision (e.g. credit denial). In our approach, this problem is rephrased in a classification rule based setting, and a collection of quantitative measures of discrimination is introduced, on the basis of existing norms and regulations. The measures are defined as functions of the contingency table of a classification rule, and their statistical significance is assessed, relying on a large body of statistical inference methods for proportions. Based on this basic method, we are then able to address the more general problems of: (1) unveiling all discriminatory decision patterns hidden in the historical data, combining discrimination analysis with association rule mining, (2) unveiling discrimination in classifiers that learn over training data biased by discriminatory decisions, and (3) in the case of rule-based classifiers, sanitizing discriminatory rules by correcting their confidence. Our approach is validated on the German credit dataset and on the CPAR classifier.