mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ABCFair: an Adaptable Benchmark approach for Comparing Fairness Methods

arXiv 2409.16965 ↗First posted 25 Sep 2024cs.LG cs.CYcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Numerous methods have been implemented that pursue fairness with respect to sensitive features by mitigating biases in machine learning. Yet, the problem settings that each method tackles vary significantly, including the stage of intervention, the composition of sensitive features, the fairness notion, and the distribution of the output. Even in binary classification, these subtle differences make it highly complicated to benchmark fairness methods, as their performance can strongly depend on exactly how the bias mitigation problem was originally framed. Hence, we introduce ABCFair, a benchmark approach which allows adapting to the desiderata of the real-world problem setting, enabling proper comparability between methods for any use case. We apply ABCFair to a range of pre-, in-, and postprocessing methods on both large-scale, traditional datasets and on a dual label (biased and unbiased) dataset to sidestep the fairness-accuracy trade-off.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2024.

Builds on

28 of 56 references.

References · 28

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  3. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  4. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  5. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  6. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
  7. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 369
  8. 2018Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representationscited by 353
  9. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  10. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  11. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
  12. 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
16 more
  1. 2018An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 81
  2. 2023Fairlearn: Assessing and Improving Fairness of AI Systemscited by 74
  3. 2023Benchmarking Distribution Shift in Tabular Data with TableShiftcited by 64
  4. 2020Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notionscited by 53
  5. 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
  6. 2023FFB: A Fair Fairness Benchmark for In-Processing Group Fairness Methodscited by 33
  7. 2021Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literaturecited by 27
  8. 2023Unprocessing Seven Years of Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 18
  9. 2022Subgroup Robustness Grows On Trees: An Empirical Baseline Investigationcited by 17
  10. 2018From Soft Classifiers to Hard Decisions: How fair can we be?cited by 16
  11. 2022Inherent Limitations of AI Fairnesscited by 12
  12. 2024How to be fair? A study of label and selection biascited by 11
  13. 2023fairret: a Framework for Differentiable Fairness Regularization Termscited by 7
  14. 2023Maximal Fairnesscited by 6
  15. 2023When Fair Classification Meets Noisy Protected Attributescited by 6
  16. 2024Reranking individuals: The effect of fair classification within-groupscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 2.

8 papers.