mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Predicting Fairness of ML Software Configurations

arXiv 2404.19100 ↗First posted 29 Apr 2024cs.SE cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper investigates the relationships between hyperparameters of machine learning and fairness. Data-driven solutions are increasingly used in critical socio-technical applications where ensuring fairness is important. Rather than explicitly encoding decision logic via control and data structures, the ML developers provide input data, perform some pre-processing, choose ML algorithms, and tune hyperparameters (HPs) to infer a program that encodes the decision logic. Prior works report that the selection of HPs can significantly influence fairness. However, tuning HPs to find an ideal trade-off between accuracy, precision, and fairness has remained an expensive and tedious task. Can we predict fairness of HP configuration for a given dataset? Are the predictions robust to distribution shifts? We focus on group fairness notions and investigate the HP space of 5 training algorithms. We first find that tree regressors and XGBoots significantly outperformed deep neural networks and support vector machines in accurately predicting the fairness of HPs. When predicting the fairness of ML hyperparameters under temporal distribution shift, the tree regressors outperforms the other algorithms with reasonable accuracy. However, the precision depends on the ML training algorithm, dataset, and protected attributes. For example, the tree regressor model was robust for training data shift from 2014 to 2018 on logistic regression and discriminant analysis HPs with sex as the protected attribute; but not for race and other training algorithms. Our method provides a sound framework to efficiently perform fine-tuning of ML training algorithms and understand the relationships between HPs and fairness.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2024.

Builds on

14 of 40 references.

References · 14

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2017Large-Scale Evolution of Image Classifierscited by 348
  4. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 218
  5. 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 126
  6. 2017Evolving Deep Neural Networkscited by 95
  7. 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 93
  8. 2019A Comparative Analysis of XGBoostcited by 80
  9. 2021Fair Preprocessing: Towards Understanding Compositional Fairness of Data Transformers in Machine Learning Pipelinecited by 49
  10. 2022Fairness-aware Configuration of Machine Learning Librariescited by 28
  11. 2019Software Engineering for Fairness: A Case Study with Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 18
  12. 2020VerifyMed -- A blockchain platform for transparent trust in virtualized healthcare: Proof-of-conceptcited by 14
2 more
  1. 2020Detecting and Understanding Real-World Differential Performance Bugs in Machine Learning Librariescited by 7
  2. 2022Metamorphic Testing and Debugging of Tax Preparation Softwarecited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.