The k-anonymity privacy requirement for publishing microdata

What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender) and an explicit description of the process.When computers are involved, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the process, we propose making inferences based on the data it uses.We present four contributions. First, we link disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on how well the protected class can be predicted from the other attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.

A key goal of the fair-ML community is to develop machine-learning based systems that, once introduced into a social context, can achieve social and legal outcomes such as fairness, justice, and due process. Bedrock concepts in computer science-such as abstraction and modular design-are used to define notions of fairness and discrimination, to produce fairness-aware learning algorithms, and to intervene at different stages of a decision-making pipeline to produce "fair" outcomes. In this paper, however, we contend that these concepts render technical interventions ineffective, inaccurate, and sometimes dangerously misguided when they enter the societal context that surrounds decision-making systems. We outline this mismatch with five "traps" that fair-ML work can fall into even as it attempts to be more context-aware in comparison to traditional data science. We draw on studies of sociotechnical systems in Science and Technology Studies to explain why such traps occur and how to avoid them. Finally, we suggest ways in which technical designers can mitigate the traps through a refocusing of design in terms of process rather than solutions, and by drawing abstraction boundaries to include social actors rather than purely technical ones. CCS CONCEPTS • Applied computing → Law, social and behavioral sciences; • Computing methodologies → Machine learning;

Computers are increasingly used to make decisions that have significant impact in people's lives. Often, these predictions can affect different population subgroups disproportionately. As a result, the issue of fairness has received much recent interest, and a number of fairness-enhanced classifiers and predictors have appeared in the literature. This paper seeks to study the following questions: how do these different techniques fundamentally compare to one another, and what accounts for the differences? Specifically, we seek to bring attention to many under-appreciated aspects of such fairness-enhancing interventions. Concretely, we present the results of an open benchmark we have developed that lets us compare a number of different algorithms under a variety of fairness measures, and a large number of existing datasets. We find that although different algorithms tend to prefer specific formulations of fairness preservations, many of these measures strongly correlate with one another. In addition, we find that fairness-preserving algorithms tend to be sensitive to fluctuations in dataset composition (simulated in our benchmark by varying training-test splits), indicating that fairness interventions might be more brittle than previously thought.

One of the primary goals of computational anatomy is the statistical analysis of anatomical variability in large populations of images. The study of anatomical shape is inherently related to the construction of transformations of the underlying coordinate space, which map one anatomy to another. It is now well established that representing the geometry of shapes or images in Euclidian spaces undermines our ability to represent natural variability in populations. In our previous work we have extended classical statistical analysis techniques, such as averaging, principal components analysis, and regression, to Riemannian manifolds, which are more appropriate representations for describing anatomical variability. In this paper we extend the notion of robust estimation, a well established and powerful tool in traditional statistical analysis of Euclidian data, to manifold-valued representations of anatomical variability. In particular, we extend the geometric median, a classic robust estimator of centrality for data in Euclidean spaces. We formulate the geometric median of data on a Riemannian manifold as the minimizer of the sum of geodesic distances to the data points. We prove existence and uniqueness of the geometric median on manifolds with non-positive sectional curvature and give sufficient conditions for uniqueness on positively curved manifolds. Generalizing the Weiszfeld procedure for finding the geometric median of Euclidean data, we present an algorithm for computing the geometric median on an arbitrary manifold. We show that this algorithm converges to the unique solution when it exists. In this paper we exemplify the robustness of the estimation technique by applying the procedure to various manifolds commonly used in the analysis of medical images. Using this approach, we also present a robust brain atlas estimation technique based on the geometric median in the space of deformable images.