Is it ethical to avoid error analysis?
Eva Garc\'ia-Mart\'in
Niklas Lavesson
Machine learning algorithms tend to create more accurate models with the availability of large datasets. In some cases, highly accurate models can hide the presence of bias in the data. There are several studies published that tackle the development of discriminatory-aware machine learning algorithms. We center on the further evaluation of machine learning models by doing error analysis, to understand under what conditions the model is not working as expected. We focus on the ethical implications of avoiding error analysis, from a falsification of results and discrimination perspective. Finally, we show different ways to approach error analysis in non-interpretable machine learning algorithms such as deep learning.
EGM_FATML_17.tex
\documentclass[sigconf, 11pt ]{acmart}

\usepackage{booktabs} % For formal tables
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[anythingbreaks]{breakurl}


% \makeatletter
% \g@addto@macro{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
% \makeatother

% \usepackage{url}
% \PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
% \usepackage{hyperref}


% \ACMfontsize{11pt} 

% Copyright
\setcopyright{none}
%\setcopyright{acmcopyright}
%\setcopyright{acmlicensed}
% \setcopyright{rightsretained}
%\setcopyright{usgov}
%\setcopyright{usgovmixed}
%\setcopyright{cagov}
%\setcopyright{cagovmixed}


% \def\ACM@fontsize{
% \DeclareOptionX{9pt}{\edef\ACM@fontsize{\CurrentOption}} 
% \DeclareOptionX{10pt}{\edef\ACM@fontsize{\CurrentOption}} 
% \DeclareOptionX{11pt}{\edef\ACM@fontsize{\CurrentOption}} 
% \DeclareOptionX{12pt}{\edef\ACM@fontsize{\CurrentOption}}
% \DeclareOptionX{draft}{\PassOptionsToClass{\CurrentOption}{amsart}}
% \DeclareOptionX{*}{\PassOptionsToClass{\CurrentOption}{amsart}}
% \ProcessOptionsX
% \ClassInfo{\@classname}{Using format \ACM@format, number \ACM@format@nr}


% DOI
% \acmDOI{10.475/123_4}

% ISBN
% \acmISBN{123-4567-24-567/08/06}

% Conference
\acmConference[]{Presented as a poster at the 2017 Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML 2017)}{}{} 
\acmYear{2017}
% \copyrightyear{2017}

% \acmPrice{15.00}


\begin{document}
% \ACMfontsize{11pt}
\title{Is it ethical to avoid error analysis?}


\author{Eva Garc\'ia-Mart\'in}
\orcid{0000-0003-4973-9255}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{Blekinge Institute of Technology}
  \department{Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering}
  % \streetaddress{P.O. Box 1212}
  \city{Karlskrona} 
  \country{Sweden} 
  \postcode{371 79}
}
\email{eva.garcia.martin@bth.se}

\author{Niklas Lavesson}
% \authornote{The secretary disavows any knowledge of this author's actions.}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{Blekinge Institute of Technology}
   \department{Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering}
  % \streetaddress{P.O. Box 1212}
  \city{Karlskrona} 
  \state{Sweden} 
  \postcode{371 79}
}
\email{niklas.lavesson@bth.se}



% The default list of authors is too long for headers}
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{E. Garc\'ia-Mart\'in et al.}


\begin{abstract}

Machine learning algorithms tend to create more accurate models with the availability of large datasets. In some cases, highly accurate models can hide the presence of bias in the data.
There are several studies published that tackle the development of discriminatory-aware machine learning algorithms. We center on the further evaluation of machine learning models by doing error analysis, to understand under what conditions the model is not working as expected. 
We focus on the ethical implications of avoiding error analysis, from a falsification of results and discrimination perspective.  Finally, we show different ways to approach error analysis in non-interpretable machine learning algorithms such as deep learning.



\end{abstract}

%
% The code below should be generated by the tool at
% http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm
% Please copy and paste the code instead of the example below. 
%
% \begin{CCSXML}
% <ccs2012>
% <concept>
% <concept_id>10003456.10003457.10003490.10003491.10003497</concept_id>
% <concept_desc>Social and professional topics~Computer and information systems training</concept_desc>
% <concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
% </concept>
% <concept>
% <concept_id>10010147.10010257.10010258.10010259</concept_id>
% <concept_desc>Computing methodologies~Supervised learning</concept_desc>
% <concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
% </concept>
% </ccs2012>
% \end{CCSXML}

% \ccsdesc[300]{Social and professional topics~Computer and information systems training}
% \ccsdesc[300]{Computing methodologies~Supervised learning}


\keywords{Fairness, Transparency, Ethical Machine Learning, Error analysis}


\maketitle

% \input{samplebody-conf}


\section{Introduction}

Fairness in machine learning studies the discriminatory impact of different machine learning algorithms, techniques or approaches from three different angles:  fairness, transparency and accountability. Fairness studies discrimination-aware data mining~\cite{zliobaite2015survey}, and centers on developing systems that either analyze if models are producing biased predictions, or develops systems that are discrimination-conscious-by-design~\cite{hajian2016algorithmic}.
As a clarification, when mentioning discrimination we refer to: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people"\footnote{\url{https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination}}.

Big data and deep learning present ethical issues~\cite{hardt2014big}. Deep learning algorithms develop models that resemble a black box, being hard or impossible to interpret. Thus, making it very complicated if not impossible to understand the reasons behind the model's predictions. 
Big data may pose ethical issues, in particular in relation to the analysis of social data at a granular level. 
% In this case, the use of algorithms to analyze data can negatively affect users privacy, and it can also create undetected biased models. 
The model can produce biased decisions, but since it is built on large-scale datasets, that bias can remain unnoticed due to high predictive performance results~\cite{wallach2014big}. 


This particular case is studied in this paper. We study what is called error analysis or model analysis. Error analysis addresses the reasons for the model to output an error, and if that error is due to standard noise or due to algorithmic bias or discrimination. We consider standard noise to be prediction errors in the testing phase, due to the model not being able to correctly classify a specific instance. Error analysis is directly connected to transparency and accountability, since it studies if a model is working as intended, giving also reasons why a model is outputting certain results. 
Since this is usually not possible in deep learning algorithms, we address if error or model analysis can be achieved in deep learning and what are the ethical issues behind it.

The goal of this study is to investigate the following question: Is it unethical to avoid error analysis of the model and the results?
There are several studies that address post-processing model approaches~\cite{hajian2016algorithmic} by focusing on discrimination-aware models~\cite{kamiran2010discrimination,hajian2015discrimination,kamiran2012decision}. One of these post-processing model approaches is to enforce further analysis of the model to understand how biased/unbiased it is. 
We believe that avoiding error analysis can present two ethical issues:

\begin{itemize}
  \item Falsification of results
  \item Discrimination
\end{itemize}

While the most commonly referred meaning of falsification in research is to disprove a proposition, hypothesis, or theory, in this study we focus on falsification as a form of research fraud.
In research ethics, falsification of results is also omitting relevant data and results intentionally. In this case, we argue that not investigating further the results of a model or the reasons behind its behavior is omitting part of the results. Since there has been an intent to omit part of the results, this has a direct link to research fraud, thus presenting an ethical concern. 
% results are not complete, 
% and they can lead to different types of conclusions, there is an ethical concern behind it. 
Regarding discrimination, feeding a model with unbalanced data can lead to the model outputting discriminative predictions. If the researcher is unaware of the type of data that the model is being trained on, a discriminative situation can occur. In this case, the model could be correct, since the reasons for these predictions is on the wrongly acquisition of biased and unbalanced data. One approach to avoid this is by error analysis. 

% when analyzing social data, not looking in depth into the model error can lead to a model being discriminative without the researcher's knowledge. The model can be very accurate towards the majority of the population present in the dataset, but quite inaccurate towards the minorities, which also represents ethical concerns. 

In the following sections we present the cases of falsification and discrimination connected to error analysis in machine learning. 
We study how error analysis is related to deep learning, if it can be achieved, and the ethical aspects behind it. Finally, we show the benefits from a research perspective of digging deep into a model's understanding.

\section{Falsification}

The form of falsification studied in this paper stands for: "Manipulating research materials, images, data, equipment, or processes. Falsification includes changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented. A person might falsify data to make it fit with the desired end result of a study\footnote{\url{http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct}}".

Is it really ethical to not disclose all the information regarding an algorithm, experiment, or model? From an ethical perspective, presenting a work that is not fully tested is not considered a good practice. However, in legal terms, it depends if there was intent from the researcher side to tamper with results, or hide evidence. 
If the intent exists, then it is considered falsification and research fraud. 
On the other hand, there could be cases where the researcher chooses not to work further on the model evaluation aspect, but with no intent to falsify results or data. While this could be regarded as unethical, it is not research fraud.  

One example of falsification is when researchers publish experiments only from datasets where the algorithm outputs highly accurate results, and omits those datasets where the algorithm fails. 
This is commonly known as cherry picking\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking}}, and it is directly falsification, since the researchers are intentionally omitting results to improve the chances of getting published by faking the performance of their algorithm or solution. 
% One can argue that it might depend if the researcher knew about these new findings or not, but in the end, not knowing something does not justify not doing the right thing. 
% From an ethical perspective, a researcher can knowingly not investigate further since the results are positive, and they do not want to encounter the possibility of having negative results. 
% This is done when for example researchers only publish experiments from datasets where the algorithm outputs high accurate results, and omits those datasets where the algorithm fails. 
% This is commonly known as cherry picking, and it is directly falsification, from the definition that we have explained above\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking}}. The researcher is willingly omitting part of the results, sometimes omitting just negative results. 



In relation to avoiding error analysis, one can argue that it is also a case of falsification if intent can be proven, since the research and the results are not accurately presented. A good research ethics practice is to have a clear understanding of the results, ensuring an accurate portray of reality.
Confirmation bias plays an important part on this aspect. Confirmation bias is: "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias}}". 

A possible reason for a researcher to not proceed further into analyzing the results of the model could be because they obtained positive results, confirming their own hypothesis of the correctness of their work. 
This is also confirmation bias. As explained by Elsevier: "a person might falsify data to make it fit with the desired end result of a study\footnote{\url{https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/websites/elsevier_publishingcampus/files/Guides/Quick_guide_RF02_ENG_2015.pdf}}".
In terms of research, not doing error analysis might lead to a model working differently than what is published, with the researcher being unaware of this. 
For example, by testing algorithm $A$ against algorithm $B$ in only one dataset, the results could be due to pure chance. 


Our main argument is that the lack of understanding of the model and the results is an ethical concern. 
While only omitting results intentionally is considered as falsification and fraud, a lack of understanding of the model is unethical, unprofessional, and a bad research practice.




\section{Discrimination}
Big Data and discrimination are fully related nowadays. Big Data studies patterns in data at a granular level, thus reaching a level that can be key to the privacy of the person.
{\v{Z}}liobait{\.e}~\cite{zliobaite2015survey} gives a clear explanation of how non-discrimination can be defined in the context of machine learning: "(i) people that are similar in terms non-protected characteristics should receive similar predictions, and (ii) differences in predictions across groups of people can only be as large as justified by non-protected characteristics."
The first part of the definition means that the model should output the same value, in presence or not of the non-protected characteristic. 
A non-protected characteristic can be race or gender. The second part means that if (i) does not occur, the researcher should be able to explain the reasons behind it, they should be justified. 

In relation to model analysis, not doing model analysis can lead to a discriminatory and biased model.  
Wallach and Hardt portray a very clear example of when error analysis can be crucial~\cite{wallach2014big,hardt2014big}. Imagine a situation where there is a model that classifies user names as "real" or "fake" with a 95\% accuracy.
At a first glance, any researcher would be satisfied with the results. 
However, analyzing the results and the model carefully, they observed that the model outputs a high accuracy when it classifies names from American people, but it only achieves a 50\% accuracy when classifying names from other cultures. In this case, the model is correct, since it has generalized from the training data and built a model accordingly. The problem is the unbalanced and biased data that is used for training. If the model is trained with data that is mostly populated with American names, and almost no names from other cultures, then the model will output biased predictions. This can be avoided by further evaluating the model. 


We argue that the researcher has the ethical obligation to ensure that their model is not biased and discriminatory if it is going to be applied on human-related scenarios. 
Several publications check for biases in different models. For example, Tramer et.al created a toolkit to identify biases in machine learning models~\cite{tramer2015discovering}. The consequences of not checking for this type of biases can lead to cases such as the ones reported where Google was labeling black people as gorillas~\cite{guynn2015google}. Or the case with the Microsoft chatbot "Tay"~\cite{taybot}.
Overall, researchers should build discrimination-aware models, ensuring their published models are working as expected by doing error and model analysis. 
% The summary is that we can focus our energy in building discrimination-aware models, and ensuring that our model is working as expected by doing error and model analysis once the model is built.

% The benefits of these deep analysis are portrayed below. In relation to discrimination, we can not only build a discrimination-aware model, but also have a clear understanding of its behavior. We can increase the model’s accuracy by taking into account the errors regarding minorities and fixing them. 


\section{Deep Learning}

There are two key questions regarding deep learning and error analysis: 1) can we achieve error analysis in deep learning?, and 2) what are the ethical issues if we can not do error analysis in deep learning?

Deep learning algorithms are designed as black boxes, where very little information can be extracted from the models. This characteristic has been described as "opacity"~\cite{burrell2016machine}. In order to understand if conducting error analysis on these algorithms is possible or not, we need to first understand the reasons behind this opacity, and if there is a way out of it that can yield light into improving the transparency of the model. 

There are several forms of opacity. 
In the following paragraphs we see how they relate to error analysis, and if it can be achieved in such scenarios. 
The first form of opacity is due to \textit{intentional corporate or state secrecy}. 
Several companies have algorithms that are responsible for the company making big revenues, thus these companies do not want to make those algorithms public. One way to solve this issue is by promoting open source publishing of code, a practice that is quite common in top conferences and journals in data mining and machine learning. In relation to error analysis, \textit{intentional corporate or state secrecy} does not prevent the researchers of the algorithm to dig deeper into the models characteristics. So there is no conflict in this aspect.

The second form of opacity is due to \textit{a mismatch between mathematical procedures of machine learning algorithms and human styles of semantic interpretation}~\cite{burrell2016machine}. In other words, humans have trouble understanding them. This is directly an issue for error analysis and transparency. Since it is hard to interpret how the algorithm is building the model and making the decisions, we can not be transparent regarding the logic, results, and the reasons for those results. When trying to interpret the logic behind this type of models, we observe how different human-logic from machine-logic is, in particular in such high dimensional data~\cite{domingos2012few}. In light of this constraint, one suggestion to improve interpretability and transparency is to evaluate the discriminatory impact of the model, without actually knowing how the model works~\cite{dwork2012fairness}. 
For example, we could input certain type of biased data and observe the model's accuracy. Since we can not know the "gears" of the algorithm, we suggest to test the output given specific input.


This lack of interpretability arises many ethical concerns, in particular in key research fields like medicine and health. One can not explain the reasons behind the model, but the best approach that a researcher can follow is to increase the effort spent on evaluating a non-interpretable machine learning model to ensure that is not discriminatory and biased.

\section{Benefits of Error Analysis}

On a more general focus, error analysis has clear benefits apart from the ethical ones already mentioned. Publishing work that has been thoroughly evaluated, where the code is open source and available for everyone, and where there is a deep understanding of how it works, moves towards high quality research. 

On the other hand, cherry-picking, not digging deep into the model's behavior will produce lower quality research, that does not really help advance towards a more fair and transparent society. 
% Unfortunately, there will always be researchers that publish for the numbers, and not really for global good. 

To finally motivate in favor of doing error analysis, there are four key points that are beneficial for every researcher and society in general: i) better understanding of the model, ii) transparency, iii) accountability, and iv) advancement of further research. 

\vspace{0pt}


\section{Take Away Notes}

This paper has addressed the issue of avoiding doing error analysis and its ethical concerns. We have argued that while only if researchers had the intent to omit results and do further analysis to favor their results is considered as falsification and fraud, omitting results and avoiding further model evaluation and analysis is unethical, unprofessional and not a good research practice.  


% f a model behaves in a different way than what the researchers preliminary published and predicted, it can be seen as a form of falsification. Since the results that are being presented are not accurate towards the reality. Moreover, when a researcher avoids doing error analysis, since many important results could be omitted, that can be also related to falsification issues. 

Avoiding doing error analysis can also lead to a situation where the model is trained with biased data, creating a model that outputs discriminative predictions, such as what happened with Google labeling black people as Gorillas~\cite{guynn2015google}. There needs to be an understanding of the limitations of a model. An algorithm creates a model based on a mathematical function and training data. If that data is not accurately representing the reality, then the model produced will portray that non-accurate reality. Thus, the opened question is: \textit{how can we design AI that gives morally, justifiable, thoughtful, emphatic and/or fair responses?}
% creating a discriminatory model, as happened with the Microsoft Bot\footnote{\url{http://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/03/ethics-machine-learning-tay-chatbot-fiasco.html}}. 

% As a concluding remark, in a field like Deep Learning, we deeply encourage to put focus and effort on error analysis by further testing the model in many different scenarios so that the researchers understand that the model is: i) working as expected, ii) not biased and iii) not discriminatory. 
\begin{acks}
This work is part of the research project "Scalable resource-efficient systems for big data analytics" funded by the Knowledge Foundation (grant: 20140032) in Sweden.

\end{acks}

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{lib} 

\end{document}

EGM_FATML_17.bbl
%%% -*-BibTeX-*-
%%% Do NOT edit. File created by BibTeX with style
%%% ACM-Reference-Format-Journals [18-Jan-2012].

\begin{thebibliography}{00}

%%% ====================================================================
%%% NOTE TO THE USER: you can override these defaults by providing
%%% customized versions of any of these macros before the \bibliography
%%% command.  Each of them MUST provide its own final punctuation,
%%% except for \shownote{}, \showDOI{}, and \showURL{}.  The latter two
%%% do not use final punctuation, in order to avoid confusing it with
%%% the Web address.
%%%
%%% To suppress output of a particular field, define its macro to expand
%%% to an empty string, or better, \unskip, like this:
%%%
%%% \newcommand{\showDOI}[1]{\unskip}   % LaTeX syntax
%%%
%%% \def \showDOI #1{\unskip}           % plain TeX syntax
%%%
%%% ====================================================================

\ifx \showCODEN    \undefined \def \showCODEN     #1{\unskip}     \fi
\ifx \showDOI      \undefined \def \showDOI       #1{#1}\fi
\ifx \showISBNx    \undefined \def \showISBNx     #1{\unskip}     \fi
\ifx \showISBNxiii \undefined \def \showISBNxiii  #1{\unskip}     \fi
\ifx \showISSN     \undefined \def \showISSN      #1{\unskip}     \fi
\ifx \showLCCN     \undefined \def \showLCCN      #1{\unskip}     \fi
\ifx \shownote     \undefined \def \shownote      #1{#1}          \fi
\ifx \showarticletitle \undefined \def \showarticletitle #1{#1}   \fi
\ifx \showURL      \undefined \def \showURL       {\relax}        \fi
% The following commands are used for tagged output and should be
% invisible to TeX
\providecommand\bibfield[2]{#2}
\providecommand\bibinfo[2]{#2}
\providecommand\natexlab[1]{#1}
\providecommand\showeprint[2][]{arXiv:#2}

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{??}{tay}{2016}]%
        {taybot}
 \bibinfo{year}{2016}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{{E}thics {I}n {M}achine {L}earning: {W}hat we learned
  from {T}ay chatbot fiasco?}
\newblock
  \bibinfo{howpublished}{\url{http://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/03/ethics-machine-learning-tay-chatbot-fiasco.html}}.
    (\bibinfo{year}{2016}).
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Burrell}{Burrell}{2016}]%
        {burrell2016machine}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Jenna Burrell}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2016}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{How the machine 'thinks': Understanding opacity in
  machine learning algorithms}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em Big Data \& Society\/}} \bibinfo{volume}{3},
  \bibinfo{number}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2016}), \bibinfo{pages}{1--12}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Domingos}{Domingos}{2012}]%
        {domingos2012few}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Pedro Domingos}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2012}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{A few useful things to know about machine
  learning}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\it Commun. ACM}} \bibinfo{volume}{55},
  \bibinfo{number}{10} (\bibinfo{year}{2012}), \bibinfo{pages}{78--87}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, and
  Zemel}{Dwork et~al\mbox{.}}{2012}]%
        {dwork2012fairness}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Cynthia Dwork}, \bibinfo{person}{Moritz
  Hardt}, \bibinfo{person}{Toniann Pitassi}, \bibinfo{person}{Omer Reingold},
  {and} \bibinfo{person}{Richard Zemel}.} \bibinfo{year}{2012}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Fairness through awareness}. In
  \bibinfo{booktitle}{{\em Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical
  Computer Science Conference}}. ACM, \bibinfo{pages}{214--226}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Guynn}{Guynn}{2015}]%
        {guynn2015google}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{J Guynn}.} \bibinfo{year}{2015}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Google Photos labeled black people 'gorillas'}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em USA Today, July\/}} (\bibinfo{year}{2015}).
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hajian, Bonchi, and Castillo}{Hajian
  et~al\mbox{.}}{2016}]%
        {hajian2016algorithmic}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Sara Hajian}, \bibinfo{person}{Francesco
  Bonchi}, {and} \bibinfo{person}{Carlos Castillo}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2016}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to
  fairness-aware data mining}. In \bibinfo{booktitle}{{\em Proceedings of the
  22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data
  Mining}}. ACM, \bibinfo{pages}{2125--2126}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hajian, Domingo-Ferrer, Monreale, Pedreschi,
  and Giannotti}{Hajian et~al\mbox{.}}{2015}]%
        {hajian2015discrimination}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Sara Hajian}, \bibinfo{person}{Josep
  Domingo-Ferrer}, \bibinfo{person}{Anna Monreale}, \bibinfo{person}{Dino
  Pedreschi}, {and} \bibinfo{person}{Fosca Giannotti}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2015}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Discrimination-and privacy-aware patterns}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery\/}}
  \bibinfo{volume}{29}, \bibinfo{number}{6} (\bibinfo{year}{2015}),
  \bibinfo{pages}{1733--1782}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hardt}{Hardt}{2014}]%
        {hardt2014big}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Moritz Hardt}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2014}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{How big data is unfair: Understanding sources of
  unfairness in data driven decision making}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em Medium. Available at: https://medium. com/@
  mrtz/how-big-data-is-unfair-9aa544d739de (accessed 8 February 2015)\/}}
  (\bibinfo{year}{2014}).
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kamiran, Calders, and Pechenizkiy}{Kamiran
  et~al\mbox{.}}{2010}]%
        {kamiran2010discrimination}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Faisal Kamiran}, \bibinfo{person}{Toon
  Calders}, {and} \bibinfo{person}{Mykola Pechenizkiy}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2010}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Discrimination aware decision tree learning}. In
  \bibinfo{booktitle}{{\em 10th International Conference on Data Mining
  (ICDM)}}. IEEE, \bibinfo{pages}{869--874}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kamiran, Karim, and Zhang}{Kamiran
  et~al\mbox{.}}{2012}]%
        {kamiran2012decision}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Faisal Kamiran}, \bibinfo{person}{Asim
  Karim}, {and} \bibinfo{person}{Xiangliang Zhang}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2012}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Decision theory for discrimination-aware
  classification}. In \bibinfo{booktitle}{{\em Data Mining (ICDM), 2012 IEEE
  12th International Conference on}}. IEEE, \bibinfo{pages}{924--929}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tramer, Atlidakis, Geambasu, Hsu, Hubaux,
  Humbert, Juels, and Lin}{Tramer et~al\mbox{.}}{2015}]%
        {tramer2015discovering}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Florian Tramer}, \bibinfo{person}{Vaggelis
  Atlidakis}, \bibinfo{person}{Roxana Geambasu}, \bibinfo{person}{Daniel Hsu},
  \bibinfo{person}{Jean-Pierre Hubaux}, \bibinfo{person}{Mathias Humbert},
  \bibinfo{person}{Ari Juels}, {and} \bibinfo{person}{Huang Lin}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2015}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven
  Applications with the FairTest Testing Toolkit}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02377\/}}
  (\bibinfo{year}{2015}).
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wallach}{Wallach}{2014}]%
        {wallach2014big}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Hanna Wallach}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2014}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{Big data, machine learning, and the social
  sciences: Fairness, accountability, and transparency}. In
  \bibinfo{booktitle}{{\em NIPS Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and
  Transparency in Machine Learning}}.
\newblock


\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{\v{Z}}liobait{\.e}}{{\v{Z}}liobait{\.e}}{2015}]%
        {zliobaite2015survey}
\bibfield{author}{\bibinfo{person}{Indr{\.e} {\v{Z}}liobait{\.e}}.}
  \bibinfo{year}{2015}\natexlab{}.
\newblock \showarticletitle{A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in
  machine learning}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{{\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00148\/}}
  (\bibinfo{year}{2015}).
\newblock


\end{thebibliography}
