A Survey on Preserving Fairness Guarantees in Changing Environments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Human lives are increasingly being affected by the outcomes of automated decision-making systems and it is essential for the latter to be, not only accurate, but also fair. The literature of algorithmic fairness has grown considerably over the last decade, where most of the approaches are evaluated under the strong assumption that the train and test samples are independently and identically drawn from the same underlying distribution. However, in practice, dissimilarity between the training and deployment environments exists, which compromises the performance of the decision-making algorithm as well as its fairness guarantees in the deployment data. There is an emergent research line that studies how to preserve fairness guarantees when the data generating processes differ between the source (train) and target (test) domains, which is growing remarkably. With this survey, we aim to provide a wide and unifying overview on the topic. For such purpose, we propose a taxonomy of the existing approaches for fair classification under distribution shift, highlight benchmarking alternatives, point out the relation with other similar research fields and eventually, identify future venues of research.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 76 of its 138 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2022.
Builds on
76 of 138 references.
References · 76
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
- 2020FixMatch: Simplifying Semi-Supervised Learning with Consistency and Confidencecited by 2,080
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Transfer Learningcited by 1,154
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2018Recognition in Terra Incognitacited by 655
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
38 more
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
- 2018Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representationscited by 353
- 2015The Variational Fair Autoencodercited by 223
- 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 183
- 2018Learning Gender-Neutral Word Embeddingscited by 169
- 2020CheXclusion: Fairness gaps in deep chest X-ray classifierscited by 153
- 2017No Classification without Representation: Assessing Geodiversity Issues in Open Data Sets for the Developing Worldcited by 152
- 2019Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learningcited by 146
- 2019MIMIC-Extract: A Data Extraction, Preprocessing, and Representation Pipeline for MIMIC-IIIcited by 121
- 201850 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learningcited by 101
- 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 90
- 2020Fairness-aware Agnostic Federated Learningcited by 87
- 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
- 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
- 2020Robust Optimization for Fairness with Noisy Protected Groupscited by 78
- 2021Towards Long-term Fairness in Recommendationcited by 77
- 2019Training individually fair ML models with Sensitive Subspace Robustnesscited by 73
- 2016Satisfying Real-world Goals with Dataset Constraintscited by 68
- 2020Fair Classification with Group-Dependent Label Noisecited by 67
- 2020How Do Fair Decisions Fare in Long-term Qualification?cited by 59
- 2020Robust Fairness under Covariate Shiftcited by 58
- 2020Fairness Through Robustness: Investigating Robustness Disparity in Deep Learningcited by 55
- 2021Causally motivated Shortcut Removal Using Auxiliary Labelscited by 55
- 2020FR-Train: A Mutual Information-Based Approach to Fair and Robust Trainingcited by 52
- 2018Residual Unfairness in Fair Machine Learning from Prejudiced Datacited by 49
- 2019Equalized odds postprocessing under imperfect group informationcited by 48
- 2020Exacerbating Algorithmic Bias through Fairness Attackscited by 47
- 2017A Short-term Intervention for Long-term Fairness in the Labor Marketcited by 44
- 2020A Distributionally Robust Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 43
- 2019Noise-tolerant fair classificationcited by 40
- 2020Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labelscited by 38
- 2021FARF: A Fair and Adaptive Random Forests Classifiercited by 37
- 2018From Fair Decision Making to Social Equalitycited by 36
- 2019Transfer of Machine Learning Fairness across Domainscited by 36
- 2020Ensuring Fairness Beyond the Training Datacited by 35
- 2020Fairness and Robustness in Invariant Learning: A Case Study in Toxicity Classificationcited by 32
50 most cited of 76 All 76 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1.
2 papers.