Reranking individuals: The effect of fair classification within-groups
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) finds widespread application across various domains, but it sparks concerns about fairness in its deployment. The prevailing discourse in classification often emphasizes outcome-based metrics comparing sensitive subgroups without a nuanced consideration of the differential impacts within subgroups. Bias mitigation techniques not only affect the ranking of pairs of instances across sensitive groups, but often also significantly affect the ranking of instances within these groups. Such changes are hard to explain and raise concerns regarding the validity of the intervention. Unfortunately, these effects remain under the radar in the accuracy-fairness evaluation framework that is usually applied. Additionally, we illustrate the effect of several popular bias mitigation methods, and how their output often does not reflect real-world scenarios.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2024.
Builds on
26 of 63 references.
References · 26
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
- 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
- 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 162
- 2021A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learningcited by 157
- 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
- 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
- 2022Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 125
14 more
- 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
- 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
- 2018The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairnesscited by 94
- 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
- 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
- 2019Garbage In, Garbage Out? Do Machine Learning Application Papers in Social Computing Report Where Human-Labeled Training Data Comes From?cited by 64
- 2021It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarkscited by 61
- 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
- 2023The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by defaultcited by 36
- 2022A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifierscited by 30
- 2019Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraintscited by 20
- 2021Fairness for AUC via Feature Augmentationcited by 9
- 2022Repairing Regressors for Fair Binary Classification at Any Decision Thresholdcited by 8
- 2023On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More Than a Fair Prediction Modelcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.