mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Finding Representative Group Fairness Metrics Using Correlation Estimations

arXiv 2109.05697 ↗First posted 13 Sep 2021cs.LG cs.CYcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

It is of critical importance to be aware of the historical discrimination embedded in the data and to consider a fairness measure to reduce bias throughout the predictive modeling pipeline. Given various notions of fairness defined in the literature, investigating the correlation and interaction among metrics is vital for addressing unfairness. Practitioners and data scientists should be able to comprehend each metric and examine their impact on one another given the context, use case, and regulations. Exploring the combinatorial space of different metrics for such examination is burdensome. To alleviate the burden of selecting fairness notions for consideration, we propose a framework that estimates the correlation among fairness notions. Our framework consequently identifies a set of diverse and semantically distinct metrics as representative for a given context. We propose a Monte-Carlo sampling technique for computing the correlations between fairness metrics by indirect and efficient perturbation in the model space. Using the estimated correlations, we then find a subset of representative metrics. The paper proposes a generic method that can be generalized to any arbitrary set of fairness metrics. We showcase the validity of the proposal using comprehensive experiments on real-world benchmark datasets.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2021.

Builds on

16 of 44 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  3. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  4. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  5. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  6. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  7. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  8. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  9. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  10. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  11. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
  12. 2020Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 143
4 more
  1. 2020Fairness Metrics: A Comparative Analysiscited by 45
  2. 2017Designing Fair Ranking Schemescited by 40
  3. 2021Fairness On The Ground: Applying Algorithmic Fairness Approaches to Production Systemscited by 20
  4. 2021OmniFair: A Declarative System for Model-Agnostic Group Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

2 papers.