Positive-Sum Fairness: Leveraging Demographic Attributes to Achieve Fair AI Outcomes Without Sacrificing Group Gains
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Fairness in medical AI is increasingly recognized as a crucial aspect of healthcare delivery. While most of the prior work done on fairness emphasizes the importance of equal performance, we argue that decreases in fairness can be either harmful or non-harmful, depending on the type of change and how sensitive attributes are used. To this end, we introduce the notion of positive-sum fairness, which states that an increase in performance that results in a larger group disparity is acceptable as long as it does not come at the cost of individual subgroup performance. This allows sensitive attributes correlated with the disease to be used to increase performance without compromising on fairness. We illustrate this idea by comparing four CNN models that make different use of the race attribute in the training phase. The results show that removing all demographic encodings from the images helps close the gap in performance between the different subgroups, whereas leveraging the race attribute as a model's input increases the overall performance while widening the disparities between subgroups. These larger gaps are then put in perspective of the collective benefit through our notion of positive-sum fairness to distinguish harmful from non harmful disparities.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2024.
Builds on
16 of 40 references.
References · 16
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2019MIMIC-CXR-JPG, a large publicly available database of labeled chest radiographscited by 590
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2021Reading Race: AI Recognises Patient's Racial Identity In Medical Imagescited by 155
- 2022MEDFAIR: Benchmarking Fairness for Medical Imagingcited by 66
- 2020Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Datacited by 54
- 2022Detecting Shortcut Learning for Fair Medical AI using Shortcut Testingcited by 52
4 more
- 2023The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by defaultcited by 36
- 2023The Limits of Fair Medical Imaging AI In The Wildcited by 4
- 2022Distributive Justice as the Foundational Premise of Fair ML: Unification, Extension, and Interpretation of Group Fairness Metricscited by 3
- 2023Fairness Hub Technical Briefs: AUC Gapcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.