mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving Fairness with Ensemble Combination: Margin-Dependent Bounds

arXiv 2301.10813 ↗First posted 25 Jan 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The concern about hidden discrimination in machine learning models is growing, as their widespread real-world applications increasingly impact human lives. Various techniques, including commonly used group fairness measures and several fairness-aware ensemble-based methods, have been developed to enhance fairness. However, existing fairness measures typically focus on only one aspect -- either group or individual fairness, and the compatibility difficulty among these measures indicates a possibility of remaining biases even when one of them is satisfied. Moreover, existing mechanisms to boost fairness usually present empirical results to show validity, yet few of them discuss whether fairness can be boosted with certain theoretical guarantees. To address these issues, we propose a fairness quality measure named `discriminative risk' by only perturbing protected attributes in instances, to express both individual and group fairness aspects. Furthermore, we investigate its properties and establish the first- and second-order oracle bounds and their relaxations, which show that fairness is possibly improved via ensemble combination with margin-dependent bounds. The analysis is suitable for both binary and multi-class classification. A few ensemble pruning methods are also proposed to utilise our proposed measure and obtain both accurate and fair sub-ensembles; comprehensive experiments are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed fairness measure and pruning methods.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2023.

Builds on

27 of 70 references.

References · 27

  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. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  7. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  8. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  9. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  10. 2015The Variational Fair Autoencodercited by 223
  11. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  12. 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 191
15 more
  1. 2018Fair Clustering Through Fairletscited by 176
  2. 2019Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based Algorithmscited by 168
  3. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
  4. 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
  5. 2019Scalable Fair Clusteringcited by 78
  6. 2018The Price of Fair PCA: One Extra Dimensioncited by 67
  7. 2017On Formalizing Fairness in Prediction with Machine Learningcited by 65
  8. 2019AdaFair: Cumulative Fairness Adaptive Boostingcited by 45
  9. 2018Fairness Under Compositioncited by 43
  10. 2022Causal Conceptions of Fairness and their Consequencescited by 38
  11. 2021FARF: A Fair and Adaptive Random Forests Classifiercited by 37
  12. 2020Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Votecited by 34
  13. 2022FairGBM: Gradient Boosting with Fairness Constraintscited by 25
  14. 2017On Fairness, Diversity and Randomness in Algorithmic Decision Makingcited by 17
  15. 2018Ensemble Pruning based on Objection Maximization with a General Distributed Frameworkcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

3 papers.