How fair can we go in machine learning? Assessing the boundaries of fairness in decision trees

Beyond the possible misuses of technology, there is an increased awareness that these processes are not neutral and can reproduce and amplify past and current structural inequalities [1, 2]. Within this context, particular interest is paid to the role of machine learning (ML) with well known examples of models biased against historically discriminated groups [3, 4, 5] or the intersection of these groups [6, 7]. Fairness in ML has emerged as a community initially motivated to develop technological solutions to the disparate impact and treatment by biased algorithms [8, 9, 10, 11, 5] that also moves to a broader and multi-disciplinary understanding of the issues of socio-technological interventions [12, 13, 14, 15]. This work contribute to this field by studying how far bias mitigation can go whilst satisfying the accuracy and transparency of the models, thus providing a tool for a wider understanding of the technological boundaries of socio-technical proposals. Bias mitigation techniques can broadly be divided into three non-exclusive categories [16]: (1) preprocessing, (2) inprocessing, and (3) postprocessing. The preprocessing techniques attempt to learn new representations of data to satisfy fairness definitions. The inprocessing methods involve modifying the classifier algorithm by adding a fairness constraint to the optimization problem. The postprocessing methods aim at removing discriminatory decisions after the model is trained. Normally, in inprocessing approaches the fairness criteria are used as an optimization constraint rather than as a guide to build a more equitable prediction model.