PEBAM: A Profile-Based Evaluation Method for Bias Assessment on Mixed Datasets

1. Allaj, E.: Two simple measures of variability for categorical data. J. Appl. Stat. 45(8), 1497–1516 (2018)

   Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

2. Belle, V., Papantonis, I.: Principles and practice of explainable machine learning. Front. Big Data 4 (2021)

   Google Scholar 

3. Ben Ali, B., Massmoudi, Y.: K-means clustering based on Gower similarity coefficient: a comparative study. In: 2013 5th International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013)

   Google Scholar 

4. Budiaji, W., Leisch, F.: Simple k-medoids partitioning algorithm for mixed variable data. Algorithms 12(9), 177 (2019)

   Article  Google Scholar 

5. Caruso, G., Gattone, S., Fortuna, F., Di Battista, T.: Cluster analysis for mixed data: an application to credit risk evaluation. Soc.-Econ. Plan. Sci. 73, 100850 (2021)

   Article  Google Scholar 

6. Cheng, C.H., Fu, A.W., Zhang, Y.: Entropy-based subspace clustering for mining numerical data. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2009, pp. 84–93. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (1999)

   Google Scholar 

7. Feldman, M., Friedler, S., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S.: Certifying and removing disparate impact. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2015, pp. 259–268. ACM (2015)

   Google Scholar 

8. Friedler, S., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S., Choudhary, S., Hamilton, E., Roth, D.: A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, FAT 2019, pp. 329–338. ACM (2019)

   Google Scholar 

9. Gower, J.C.: A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27(4), 857–871 (1971)

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Hardt, M., Price, E., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

11. Kamiran, F., Calders, T.: Classifying without discriminating. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication (2009)

    Google Scholar 

12. Kamiran, F., Žliobaitė, I., Calders, T.: Quantifying explainable discrimination and removing illegal discrimination in automated decision making. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 35(3), 613–644 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Kamishima, T., Akaho, S., Sakuma, J.: Fairness-aware learning through regularization approach. In: 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pp. 643–650. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

14. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., Galstyan, A.: A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(6), 1–35 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Pleis, J.: Mixtures of Discrete and Continuous Variables: Considerations for Dimension Reduction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh (2018)

    Google Scholar 

16. Suresh, H., Guttag, J.: A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. In: Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO 2021 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

17. Tiwari, M., Zhang, M.J., Mayclin, J., Thrun, S., Piech, C., Shomorony, I.: Banditpam: almost linear time k-medoids clustering via multi-armed bandits. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (2020)

    Google Scholar 

18. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C.: Why fairness cannot be automated: bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 41, 105567 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references