(Predictable) Performance Bias in Unsupervised Anomaly Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Background: With the ever-increasing amount of medical imaging data, the demand for algorithms to assist clinicians has amplified. Unsupervised anomaly detection (UAD) models promise to aid in the crucial first step of disease detection. While previous studies have thoroughly explored fairness in supervised models in healthcare, for UAD, this has so far been unexplored. Methods: In this study, we evaluated how dataset composition regarding subgroups manifests in disparate performance of UAD models along multiple protected variables on three large-scale publicly available chest X-ray datasets. Our experiments were validated using two state-of-the-art UAD models for medical images. Finally, we introduced a novel subgroup-AUROC (sAUROC) metric, which aids in quantifying fairness in machine learning. Findings: Our experiments revealed empirical "fairness laws" (similar to "scaling laws" for Transformers) for training-dataset composition: Linear relationships between anomaly detection performance within a subpopulation and its representation in the training data. Our study further revealed performance disparities, even in the case of balanced training data, and compound effects that exacerbate the drop in performance for subjects associated with multiple adversely affected groups. Interpretation: Our study quantified the disparate performance of UAD models against certain demographic subgroups. Importantly, we showed that this unfairness cannot be mitigated by balanced representation alone. Instead, the representation of some subgroups seems harder to learn by UAD models than that of others. The empirical fairness laws discovered in our study make disparate performance in UAD models easier to estimate and aid in determining the most desirable dataset composition.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2023.
Builds on
13 of 33 references.
References · 13
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,423
- 2017ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale Chest X-ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classification and Localization of Common Thorax Diseasescited by 972
- 2018Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 443
- 2022Anomaly Detection via Reverse Distillation from One-Class Embeddingcited by 421
- 2020Autoencoders for Unsupervised Anomaly Segmentation in Brain MR Images: A Comparative Studycited by 147
- 2021Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Imagescited by 134
- 2022Improving the Fairness of Chest X-ray Classifierscited by 52
- 2020FairOD: Fairness-aware Outlier Detectioncited by 24
- 2020Towards Fair Deep Anomaly Detectioncited by 24
- 2023Unsupervised Pathology Detection: A Deep Dive Into the State of the Artcited by 24
- 2022Unsupervised Anomaly Localization with Structural Feature-Autoencoderscited by 23
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
4 papers.
- 2023Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imagingcited by 4
- 2024Denoising Diffusion Models for Anomaly Localization in Medical Imagescited by 3
- 2025Critical Appraisal of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Predictive AIcited by 2
- 2025Fairness-aware Anomaly Detection via Fair Projectioncited by 1
- 2025Critical Appraisal of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI20 Jun 2025
- 2025Fairness-aware Anomaly Detection via Fair Projection16 May 2025
- 2024Denoising Diffusion Models for Anomaly Localization in Medical Images31 Oct 2024
- 2023Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging3 Nov 2023