mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Individual Fairness Through Reweighting and Tuning

arXiv 2405.01711 ↗First posted 2 May 2024cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Inherent bias within society can be amplified and perpetuated by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. To address this issue, a wide range of solutions have been proposed to identify and mitigate bias and enforce fairness for individuals and groups. Recently, Graph Laplacian Regularizer (GLR), a regularization technique from the semi-supervised learning literature has been used as a substitute for the common Lipschitz condition to enhance individual fairness. Notable prior work has shown that enforcing individual fairness through a GLR can improve the transfer learning accuracy of AI models under covariate shifts. However, the prior work defines a GLR on the source and target data combined, implicitly assuming that the target data are available at train time, which might not hold in practice. In this work, we investigated whether defining a GLR independently on the train and target data could maintain similar accuracy. Furthermore, we introduced the Normalized Fairness Gain score (NFG) to measure individual fairness by measuring the amount of gained fairness when a GLR is used versus not. We evaluated the new and original methods under NFG, the Prediction Consistency (PC), and traditional classification metrics on the German Credit Approval dataset. The results showed that the two models achieved similar statistical mean performances over five-fold cross-validation. Furthermore, the proposed metric showed that PC scores can be misleading as the scores can be high and statistically similar to fairness-enhanced models while NFG scores are small. This work therefore provides new insights into when a GLR effectively enhances individual fairness and the pitfalls of PC.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 May 2024.

Builds on

20 of 36 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Transfer Learningcited by 1,154
  2. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  3. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  4. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  5. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  6. 2018Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankingscited by 124
  7. 2021A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscapecited by 98
  8. 2019Training individually fair ML models with Sensitive Subspace Robustnesscited by 73
  9. 2020Learning Certified Individually Fair Representationscited by 69
  10. 2021Post-processing for Individual Fairnesscited by 61
  11. 2020Robust Fairness under Covariate Shiftcited by 58
  12. 2020Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Datacited by 54
8 more
  1. 2018Individual Fairness in Hindsightcited by 32
  2. 2021Maxmin-Fair Ranking: Individual Fairness under Group-Fairness Constraintscited by 18
  3. 2021Statistical inference for individual fairnesscited by 13
  4. 2022Fair Ranking as Fair Division: Impact-Based Individual Fairness in Rankingcited by 13
  5. 2023Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 7
  6. 2022iFlipper: Label Flipping for Individual Fairnesscited by 5
  7. 2023Evaluation Measures of Individual Item Fairness for Recommender Systems: A Critical Studycited by 5
  8. 2023On Optimal Regularization Parameters via Bilevel Learningcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.