mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Is it Still Fair? A Comparative Evaluation of Fairness Algorithms through the Lens of Covariate Drift

arXiv 2409.12428 ↗First posted 19 Sep 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Over the last few decades, machine learning (ML) applications have grown exponentially, yielding several benefits to society. However, these benefits are tempered with concerns of discriminatory behaviours exhibited by ML models. In this regard, fairness in machine learning has emerged as a priority research area. Consequently, several fairness metrics and algorithms have been developed to mitigate against discriminatory behaviours that ML models may possess. Yet still, very little attention has been paid to the problem of naturally occurring changes in data patterns (textitaka data distributional drift), and its impact on fairness algorithms and metrics. In this work, we study this problem comprehensively by analyzing 4 fairness-unaware baseline algorithms and 7 fairness-aware algorithms, carefully curated to cover the breadth of its typology, across 5 datasets including public and proprietary data, and evaluated them using 3 predictive performance and 10 fairness metrics. In doing so, we show that (1) data distributional drift is not a trivial occurrence, and in several cases can lead to serious deterioration of fairness in so-called fair models; (2) contrary to some existing literature, the size and direction of data distributional drift is not correlated to the resulting size and direction of unfairness; and (3) choice of, and training of fairness algorithms is impacted by the effect of data distributional drift which is largely ignored in the literature. Emanating from our findings, we synthesize several policy implications of data distributional drift on fairness algorithms that can be very relevant to stakeholders and practitioners.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2024.

Builds on

22 of 41 references.

References · 22

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  5. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  6. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  7. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  8. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  9. 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
  10. 2020Robust Fairness under Covariate Shiftcited by 58
  11. 2020A Distributionally Robust Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 43
  12. 2022Turning the Tables: Biased, Imbalanced, Dynamic Tabular Datasets for ML Evaluationcited by 39
10 more
  1. 2022Fairness Transferability Subject to Bounded Distribution Shiftcited by 28
  2. 2020Does enforcing fairness mitigate biases caused by subpopulation shift?cited by 25
  3. 2023Runtime Monitoring of Dynamic Fairness Propertiescited by 17
  4. 2021Fair Enough: Searching for Sufficient Measures of Fairnesscited by 14
  5. 2021Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classificationcited by 13
  6. 2024Graph Fairness Learning under Distribution Shiftscited by 10
  7. 2023Cross-Institutional Transfer Learning for Educational Models: Implications for Model Performance, Fairness, and Equitycited by 9
  8. 2023Understanding Fairness Surrogate Functions in Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 8
  9. 2023Monitoring Algorithmic Fairness under Partial Observationscited by 7
  10. 2022Context matters for fairness -- a case study on the effect of spatial distribution shiftscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.