Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Algorithms and models are increasingly deployed to inform decisions about people, inevitably affecting their lives. As a consequence, those in charge of developing these models must carefully evaluate their impact on different groups of people and favour group fairness, that is, ensure that groups determined by sensitive demographic attributes, such as race or sex, are not treated unjustly. To achieve this goal, the availability (awareness) of these demographic attributes to those evaluating the impact of these models is fundamental. Unfortunately, collecting and storing these attributes is often in conflict with industry practices and legislation on data minimisation and privacy. For this reason, it can be hard to measure the group fairness of trained models, even from within the companies developing them. In this work, we tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes, by using techniques from quantification, a supervised learning task concerned with directly providing group-level prevalence estimates (rather than individual-level class labels). We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem, as they are robust to inevitable distribution shifts while at the same time decoupling the (desirable) objective of measuring group fairness from the (undesirable) side effect of allowing the inference of sensitive attributes of individuals. More in detail, we show that fairness under unawareness can be cast as a quantification problem and solved with proven methods from the quantification literature. We show that these methods outperform previous approaches to measure demographic parity in five experimental protocols, corresponding to important challenges that complicate the estimation of classifier fairness under unawareness.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 42 of its 105 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2021.
Builds on
42 of 105 references.
References · 42
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2018Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss Minimizationcited by 363
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
- 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
- 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
- 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
- 2021Shifts: A Dataset of Real Distributional Shift Across Multiple Large-Scale Taskscited by 100
- 2018Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity When Protected Class Is Unobservedcited by 94
- 2020Feedback Loop and Bias Amplification in Recommender Systemscited by 89
30 more
- 2019Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combinationcited by 79
- 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
- 2019Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvementscited by 70
- 2020Fair Classification with Group-Dependent Label Noisecited by 67
- 2020Robust Fairness under Covariate Shiftcited by 58
- 2020"What We Can't Measure, We Can't Understand": Challenges to Demographic Data Procurement in the Pursuit of Fairnesscited by 56
- 2018Residual Unfairness in Fair Machine Learning from Prejudiced Datacited by 49
- 2019Equalized odds postprocessing under imperfect group informationcited by 48
- 2021Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisonscited by 42
- 2018Blind Justice: Fairness with Encrypted Sensitive Attributescited by 41
- 2020Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labelscited by 38
- 2021Evaluating Fairness of Machine Learning Models Under Uncertain and Incomplete Informationcited by 33
- 2020Mitigating Bias in Set Selection with Noisy Protected Attributescited by 29
- 2021Fairness in Information Access Systemscited by 27
- 2019ProPublica's COMPAS Data Revisitedcited by 24
- 2019Awareness in Practice: Tensions in Access to Sensitive Attribute Data for Antidiscriminationcited by 23
- 2021When Fair Ranking Meets Uncertain Inferencecited by 22
- 2017Fisher consistency for prior probability shiftcited by 20
- 2019Optimal Decision Making Under Strategic Behaviorcited by 20
- 2020Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricingcited by 17
- 2020The Importance of Modeling Data Missingness in Algorithmic Fairness: A Causal Perspectivecited by 17
- 2020Ensuring Fairness under Prior Probability Shiftscited by 16
- 2018Quantification under prior probability shift: the ratio estimator and its extensionscited by 15
- 2021Estimation of Fair Ranking Metrics with Incomplete Judgmentscited by 14
- 2020Gender Stereotype Reinforcement: Measuring the Gender Bias Conveyed by Ranking Algorithmscited by 9
- 2021Matchings with Group Fairness Constraints: Online and Offline Algorithmscited by 8
- 2020Re-Assessing the "Classify and Count" Quantification Methodcited by 7
- 2020Tweet Sentiment Quantification: An Experimental Re-Evaluationcited by 7
- 2021Algorithmic Audit of Italian Car Insurance: Evidence of Unfairness in Access and Pricingcited by 4
- 2021Better Together? How Externalities of Size Complicate Notions of Solidarity and Actuarial Fairnesscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
9 papers.
- 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Surveycited by 30
- 2024Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Researchcited by 10
- 2023Group-blind optimal transport to group parity and its constrained variantscited by 4
- 2023On the Relationship Between Interpretability and Explainability in Machine Learningcited by 3
- 2023Counterfactual Reasoning for Bias Evaluation and Detection in a Fairness under Unawareness settingcited by 2
- 2025Efficient quantification on large-scale networkscited by 1
- 2022Disparate Conditional Prediction in Multiclass Classifierscited by 0
- 2022Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Reviewcited by 0
- 2025Quantifying Feature Importance for Online Content Moderationcited by 0
- 2025Quantifying Feature Importance for Online Content Moderation22 Oct 2025
- 2025Efficient quantification on large-scale networks19 Mar 2025
- 2024Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research26 Apr 2024
- 2023On the Relationship Between Interpretability and Explainability in Machine Learning20 Nov 2023
- 2023Group-blind optimal transport to group parity and its constrained variants17 Oct 2023
- 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey25 Sep 2023
- 2023Counterfactual Reasoning for Bias Evaluation and Detection in a Fairness under Unawareness setting16 Feb 2023
- 2022Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review29 Jun 2022
- 2022Disparate Conditional Prediction in Multiclass Classifiers7 Jun 2022