LimeOut: An Ensemble Approach To Improve Process Fairness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are becoming increasingly present in several aspects of human life, especially, those dealing with decision making. Many of these algorithmic decisions are taken without human supervision and through decision making processes that are not transparent. This raises concerns regarding the potential bias of these processes towards certain groups of society, which may entail unfair results and, possibly, violations of human rights. Dealing with such biased models is one of the major concerns to maintain the public trust. In this paper, we address the question of process or procedural fairness. More precisely, we consider the problem of making classifiers fairer by reducing their dependence on sensitive features while increasing (or, at least, maintaining) their accuracy. To achieve both, we draw inspiration from "dropout" techniques in neural based approaches, and propose a framework that relies on "feature drop-out" to tackle process fairness. We make use of "LIME Explanations" to assess a classifier's fairness and to determine the sensitive features to remove. This produces a pool of classifiers (through feature dropout) whose ensemble is shown empirically to be less dependent on sensitive features, and with improved or no impact on accuracy.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 0; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
11 papers.
- 2021On Locality of Local Explanation Modelscited by 25
- 2022Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 25
- 2023A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AIcited by 16
- 2022Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensionscited by 9
- 2021Reducing Unintended Bias of ML Models on Tabular and Textual Datacited by 6
- 2023A statistical approach to detect sensitive features in a group fairness settingcited by 2
- 2025Explanations as Bias Detectors: A Critical Study of Local Post-hoc XAI Methods for Fairness Explorationcited by 2
- 2022RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Eliminationcited by 1
- 2023Fair Feature Importance Scores for Interpreting Tree-Based Methods and Surrogatescited by 1
- 2025Bridging Fairness and Explainability: Can Input-Based Explanations Promote Fairness in Hate Speech Detection?cited by 0
- 2026Fair Feature Importance Scores via Feature Occlusion and Permutationcited by 0
- 2026Fair Feature Importance Scores via Feature Occlusion and Permutation9 Feb 2026
- 2025Bridging Fairness and Explainability: Can Input-Based Explanations Promote Fairness in Hate Speech Detection?26 Sep 2025
- 2025Explanations as Bias Detectors: A Critical Study of Local Post-hoc XAI Methods for Fairness Exploration1 May 2025
- 2023A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AI15 Oct 2023
- 2023Fair Feature Importance Scores for Interpreting Tree-Based Methods and Surrogates6 Oct 2023
- 2023A statistical approach to detect sensitive features in a group fairness setting11 May 2023
- 2022Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making23 Sep 2022
- 2022Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensions16 Sep 2022
- 2022RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Elimination30 Aug 2022
- 2021Reducing Unintended Bias of ML Models on Tabular and Textual Data5 Aug 2021
- 2021On Locality of Local Explanation Models24 Jun 2021