mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Intersectional Fairness: A Fractal Approach

arXiv 2302.12683 ↗First posted 24 Feb 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The issue of fairness in AI has received an increasing amount of attention in recent years. The problem can be approached by looking at different protected attributes (e.g., ethnicity, gender, etc) independently, but fairness for individual protected attributes does not imply intersectional fairness. In this work, we frame the problem of intersectional fairness within a geometrical setting. We project our data onto a hypercube, and split the analysis of fairness by levels, where each level encodes the number of protected attributes we are intersecting over. We prove mathematically that, while fairness does not propagate "down" the levels, it does propagate "up" the levels. This means that ensuring fairness for all subgroups at the lowest intersectional level (e.g., black women, white women, black men and white men), will necessarily result in fairness for all the above levels, including each of the protected attributes (e.g., ethnicity and gender) taken independently. We also derive a formula describing the variance of the set of estimated success rates on each level, under the assumption of perfect fairness. Using this theoretical finding as a benchmark, we define a family of metrics which capture overall intersectional bias. Finally, we propose that fairness can be metaphorically thought of as a "fractal" problem. In fractals, patterns at the smallest scale repeat at a larger scale. We see from this example that tackling the problem at the lowest possible level, in a bottom-up manner, leads to the natural emergence of fair AI. We suggest that trustworthiness is necessarily an emergent, fractal and relational property of the AI system.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2023.

Builds on

9 of 31 references.

References · 9

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  5. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  6. 2019Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based Algorithmscited by 168
  7. 2019REPAIR: Removing Representation Bias by Dataset Resamplingcited by 157
  8. 2019Auditing and Achieving Intersectional Fairness in Classification Problemscited by 25
  9. 2018Bayesian Modeling of Intersectional Fairness: The Variance of Biascited by 23

Built on by

Not cited yet.