mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes: How Far Are We?

arXiv 2308.01923 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing research mostly improves the fairness of Machine Learning (ML) software regarding a single protected attribute at a time, but this is unrealistic given that many users have multiple protected attributes. This paper conducts an extensive study of fairness improvement regarding multiple protected attributes, covering 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods. We analyze the effectiveness of these methods with different datasets, metrics, and ML models when considering multiple protected attributes. The results reveal that improving fairness for a single protected attribute can largely decrease fairness regarding unconsidered protected attributes. This decrease is observed in up to 88.3% of scenarios (57.5% on average). More surprisingly, we find little difference in accuracy loss when considering single and multiple protected attributes, indicating that accuracy can be maintained in the multiple-attribute paradigm. However, the effect on F1-score when handling two protected attributes is about twice that of a single attribute. This has important implications for future fairness research: reporting only accuracy as the ML performance metric, which is currently common in the literature, is inadequate.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2023.

Builds on

22 of 64 references.

References · 22

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  4. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  5. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  6. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  7. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  8. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  9. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 213
  10. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
  11. 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 92
  12. 2022Fairness Testing: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Trendscited by 61
10 more
  1. 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
  2. 2021Fair Preprocessing: Towards Understanding Compositional Fairness of Data Transformers in Machine Learning Pipelinecited by 49
  3. 2021Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisonscited by 42
  4. 2021NeuronFair: Interpretable White-Box Fairness Testing through Biased Neuron Identificationcited by 42
  5. 2022A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifierscited by 30
  6. 2022Fairify: Fairness Verification of Neural Networkscited by 22
  7. 2021FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-based Rebalancing of Protected Attributescited by 19
  8. 2022Adaptive Fairness Improvement Based on Causality Analysiscited by 17
  9. 2022Towards Understanding Fairness and its Composition in Ensemble Machine Learningcited by 17
  10. 2022TESTSGD: Interpretable Testing of Neural Networks Against Subtle Group Discriminationcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.