mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fairness-aware Model-agnostic Positive and Unlabeled Learning

arXiv 2206.09346 ↗First posted 19 Jun 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the increasing application of machine learning in high-stake decision-making problems, potential algorithmic bias towards people from certain social groups poses negative impacts on individuals and our society at large. In the real-world scenario, many such problems involve positive and unlabeled data such as medical diagnosis, criminal risk assessment and recommender systems. For instance, in medical diagnosis, only the diagnosed diseases will be recorded (positive) while others will not (unlabeled). Despite the large amount of existing work on fairness-aware machine learning in the (semi-)supervised and unsupervised settings, the fairness issue is largely under-explored in the aforementioned Positive and Unlabeled Learning (PUL) context, where it is usually more severe. In this paper, to alleviate this tension, we propose a fairness-aware PUL method named FairPUL. In particular, for binary classification over individuals from two populations, we aim to achieve similar true positive rates and false positive rates in both populations as our fairness metric. Based on the analysis of the optimal fair classifier for PUL, we design a model-agnostic post-processing framework, leveraging both the positive examples and unlabeled ones. Our framework is proven to be statistically consistent in terms of both the classification error and the fairness metric. Experiments on the synthetic and real-world data sets demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art in both PUL and fair classification.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 2022.

Builds on

26 of 56 references.

References · 26

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  5. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  6. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  7. 2016Least Ambiguous Set-Valued Classifiers with Bounded Error Levelscited by 270
  8. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  9. 2018Learning from positive and unlabeled data: a surveycited by 218
  10. 2017Positive-Unlabeled Learning with Non-Negative Risk Estimatorcited by 217
  11. 2018Fair Clustering Through Fairletscited by 176
  12. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 139
14 more
  1. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
  2. 2018Learning Controllable Fair Representationscited by 83
  3. 2019Proportionally Fair Clusteringcited by 69
  4. 2019PC-Fairness: A Unified Framework for Measuring Causality-based Fairnesscited by 67
  5. 2019Fair k-Center Clustering for Data Summarizationcited by 65
  6. 2019Leveraging Labeled and Unlabeled Data for Consistent Fair Binary Classificationcited by 60
  7. 2014PU Learning for Matrix Completioncited by 30
  8. 2020Individual Fairness in Pipelinescited by 22
  9. 2018Instance-Dependent PU Learning by Bayesian Optimal Relabelingcited by 18
  10. 2022Comprehensive Fair Meta-learned Recommender Systemcited by 18
  11. 2019An Algorithmic Framework for Fairness Elicitationcited by 15
  12. 2018Binary Classification with Karmic, Threshold-Quasi-Concave Metricscited by 11
  13. 2014A Robust Ensemble Approach to Learn From Positive and Unlabeled Data Using SVM Base Modelscited by 7
  14. 2020Fairness Constraints in Semi-supervised Learningcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 5; 2024: 0; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

10 papers.