Fair Feature Selection: A Comparison of Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning classifiers are widely used to make decisions with a major impact on people's lives (e.g. accepting or denying a loan, hiring decisions, etc). In such applications,the learned classifiers need to be both accurate and fair with respect to different groups of people, with different values of variables such as sex and race. This paper focuses on fair feature selection for classification, i.e. methods that select a feature subset aimed at maximising both the accuracy and the fairness of the predictions made by a classifier. More specifically, we compare two recently proposed Genetic Algorithms (GAs) for fair feature selection that are based on two different multi-objective optimisation approaches: (a) a Pareto dominance-based GA; and (b) a lexicographic optimisation-based GA, where maximising accuracy has higher priority than maximising fairness. Both GAs use the same measures of accuracy and fairness, allowing for a controlled comparison. As far as we know, this is the first comparison between the Pareto and lexicographic approaches for fair classification. The results show that, overall, the lexicographic GA outperformed the Pareto GA with respect to accuracy without degradation of the fairness of the learned classifiers. This is an important result because at present nearly all GAs for fair classification are based on the Pareto approach, so these results suggest a promising new direction for research in this area.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2023.
Builds on
10 of 27 references.
References · 10
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2020A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learningcited by 225
- 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
- 2020How fair can we go in machine learning? Assessing the boundaries of fairness in decision treescited by 22
- 2020Genetic programming approaches to learning fair classifierscited by 7
- 2022Fair Feature Subset Selection using Multiobjective Genetic Algorithmcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.