mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

FITNESS: A Causal De-correlation Approach for Mitigating Bias in Machine Learning Software

arXiv 2305.14396 ↗First posted 23 May 2023cs.LG cs.CY cs.SEcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Software built on top of machine learning algorithms is becoming increasingly prevalent in a variety of fields, including college admissions, healthcare, insurance, and justice. The effectiveness and efficiency of these systems heavily depend on the quality of the training datasets. Biased datasets can lead to unfair and potentially harmful outcomes, particularly in such critical decision-making systems where the allocation of resources may be affected. This can exacerbate discrimination against certain groups and cause significant social disruption. To mitigate such unfairness, a series of bias-mitigating methods are proposed. Generally, these studies improve the fairness of the trained models to a certain degree but with the expense of sacrificing the model performance. In this paper, we propose FITNESS, a bias mitigation approach via de-correlating the causal effects between sensitive features (e.g., the sex) and the label. Our key idea is that by de-correlating such effects from a causality perspective, the model would avoid making predictions based on sensitive features and thus fairness could be improved. Furthermore, FITNESS leverages multi-objective optimization to achieve a better performance-fairness trade-off. To evaluate the effectiveness, we compare FITNESS with 7 state-of-the-art methods in 8 benchmark tasks by multiple metrics. Results show that FITNESS can outperform the state-of-the-art methods on bias mitigation while preserve the model's performance: it improved the model's fairness under all the scenarios while decreased the model's performance under only 26.67% of the scenarios. Additionally, FITNESS surpasses the Fairea Baseline in 96.72% cases, outperforming all methods we compared.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2023.

Builds on

21 of 74 references.

References · 21

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  3. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  4. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  5. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  6. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 218
  7. 2017Computer Vision for Autonomous Vehicles: Problems, Datasets and State of the Artcited by 182
  8. 2015A Random Forest Guided Tourcited by 168
  9. 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
  10. 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 126
  11. 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 93
  12. 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 78
9 more
  1. 2021User-oriented Fairness in Recommendationcited by 75
  2. 2020Fairness-Aware Explainable Recommendation over Knowledge Graphscited by 74
  3. 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
  4. 2022Causality-based Neural Network Repaircited by 47
  5. 2020FairRec: Fairness-aware News Recommendation with Decomposed Adversarial Learningcited by 44
  6. 2018Fighting Fire with Fire: Using Antidote Data to Improve Polarization and Fairness of Recommender Systemscited by 37
  7. 2019Toward a better trade-off between performance and fairness with kernel-based distribution matchingcited by 36
  8. 2021End-to-end Learning for Fair Ranking Systemscited by 18
  9. 2018Bias Disparity in Recommendation Systemscited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.