Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes: How Far Are We?
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
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 213
- 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
- 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 92
- 2022Fairness Testing: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Trendscited by 61
10 more
- 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
- 2021Fair Preprocessing: Towards Understanding Compositional Fairness of Data Transformers in Machine Learning Pipelinecited by 49
- 2021Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisonscited by 42
- 2021NeuronFair: Interpretable White-Box Fairness Testing through Biased Neuron Identificationcited by 42
- 2022A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifierscited by 30
- 2022Fairify: Fairness Verification of Neural Networkscited by 22
- 2021FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-based Rebalancing of Protected Attributescited by 19
- 2022Adaptive Fairness Improvement Based on Causality Analysiscited by 17
- 2022Towards Understanding Fairness and its Composition in Ensemble Machine Learningcited by 17
- 2022TESTSGD: Interpretable Testing of Neural Networks Against Subtle Group Discriminationcited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.