The Impact of Data Preparation on the Fairness of Software Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning models are widely adopted in scenarios that directly affect people. The development of software systems based on these models raises societal and legal concerns, as their decisions may lead to the unfair treatment of individuals based on attributes like race or gender. Data preparation is key in any machine learning pipeline, but its effect on fairness is yet to be studied in detail. In this paper, we evaluate how the fairness and effectiveness of the learned models are affected by the removal of the sensitive attribute, the encoding of the categorical attributes, and instance selection methods (including cross-validators and random undersampling). We used the Adult Income and the German Credit Data datasets, which are widely studied and known to have fairness concerns. We applied each data preparation technique individually to analyse the difference in predictive performance and fairness, using statistical parity difference, disparate impact, and the normalised prejudice index. The results show that fairness is affected by transformations made to the training data, particularly in imbalanced datasets. Removing the sensitive attribute is insufficient to eliminate all the unfairness in the predictions, as expected, but it is key to achieve fairer models. Additionally, the standard random undersampling with respect to the true labels is sometimes more prejudicial than performing no random undersampling.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 1.
12 papers.
- 2021Fair Enough: Searching for Sufficient Measures of Fairnesscited by 14
- 2022An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensemblescited by 6
- 2024A Catalog of Fairness-Aware Practices in Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 4
- 2024Exploring Fairness in Educational Data Mining in the Context of the Right to be Forgottencited by 3
- 2022AI Fairness: from Principles to Practicecited by 1
- 2022Navigating Ensemble Configurations for Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 1
- 2023A Three-Way Knot: Privacy, Fairness, and Predictive Performance Dynamicscited by 1
- 2021Auditing the Imputation Effect on Fairness of Predictive Analytics in Higher Educationcited by 0
- 2024Fair Overlap Number of Balls (Fair-ONB): A Data-Morphology-based Undersampling Method for Bias Reductioncited by 0
- 2024Beyond Algorithmic Fairness: A Guide to Develop and Deploy Ethical AI-Enabled Decision-Support Toolscited by 0
- 2024Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative?cited by 0
- 2025Language Models That Walk the Talk: A Framework for Formal Fairness Certificatescited by 0
- 2025Language Models That Walk the Talk: A Framework for Formal Fairness Certificates19 May 2025
- 2024Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative?20 Dec 2024
- 2024Beyond Algorithmic Fairness: A Guide to Develop and Deploy Ethical AI-Enabled Decision-Support Tools17 Sep 2024
- 2024A Catalog of Fairness-Aware Practices in Machine Learning Engineering29 Aug 2024
- 2024Fair Overlap Number of Balls (Fair-ONB): A Data-Morphology-based Undersampling Method for Bias Reduction19 Jul 2024
- 2024Exploring Fairness in Educational Data Mining in the Context of the Right to be Forgotten27 May 2024
- 2023A Three-Way Knot: Privacy, Fairness, and Predictive Performance Dynamics27 Jun 2023
- 2022Navigating Ensemble Configurations for Algorithmic Fairness11 Oct 2022
- 2022AI Fairness: from Principles to Practice20 Jul 2022
- 2022An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles1 Feb 2022
- 2021Fair Enough: Searching for Sufficient Measures of Fairness25 Oct 2021
- 2021Auditing the Imputation Effect on Fairness of Predictive Analytics in Higher Education13 Sep 2021