In Machine Learning, an accepted definition of fairness of a decision taken by a classifier is that it should not depend on protected features, such as gender. Unfortunately, when constraints exist between features, such dependencies can be obscured by the constraints. To avoid this problem, we propose that a decision be considered fair if it has a fair explanation. We define a fair explanation as a prime-implicant reason for the decision that does not contain any protected feature (where the constraints are taken into account in the definition of prime-implicant). Surprisingly, ignoring constraints can completely change the fairness of a decision (according to this definition) even in the absence of constraints between protected and unprotected features. Three possible definitions of fairness of a classifier are that for all its decisions (1) there are only fair explanations, (2) there is at least one fair explanation, or (3) changing protected features does not change the outcome. We identify the relationships between these different definitions of fairness and study the computational complexity of testing fairness of classifiers.

A classifier is considered interpretable if each of its decisions has an explanation which is small enough to be easily understood by a human user. A DNF can be seen as a binary classifier kappa over boolean domains. The size of an explanation of a positive decision taken by a DNF kappa is bounded by the size of the terms in kappa, since we can explain a positive decision by giving a term of kappa that evaluates to true. Since both positive and negative decisions must be explained, we consider that interpretable DNFs are those kappa for which both kappa and its complement can be expressed as DNFs composed of terms of bounded size. In this paper, we investigate the family of k-DNFs whose complements can also be expressed as k-DNFs. We compare two such families, namely depth-k decision trees and nested k-DNFs, a novel family of models. Experimental evidence indicates that nested k-DNFs are an interesting alternative to decision trees in terms of interpretability and accuracy.