mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Properties of fairness measures in the context of varying class imbalance and protected group ratios

arXiv 2411.08425 ↗First posted 13 Nov 2024cs.LG cs.CYcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Society is increasingly relying on predictive models in fields like criminal justice, credit risk management, or hiring. To prevent such automated systems from discriminating against people belonging to certain groups, fairness measures have become a crucial component in socially relevant applications of machine learning. However, existing fairness measures have been designed to assess the bias between predictions for protected groups without considering the imbalance in the classes of the target variable. Current research on the potential effect of class imbalance on fairness focuses on practical applications rather than dataset-independent measure properties. In this paper, we study the general properties of fairness measures for changing class and protected group proportions. For this purpose, we analyze the probability mass functions of six of the most popular group fairness measures. We also measure how the probability of achieving perfect fairness changes for varying class imbalance ratios. Moreover, we relate the dataset-independent properties of fairness measures described in this paper to classifier fairness in real-life tasks. Our results show that measures such as Equal Opportunity and Positive Predictive Parity are more sensitive to changes in class imbalance than Accuracy Equality. These findings can help guide researchers and practitioners in choosing the most appropriate fairness measures for their classification problems.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2024.

Builds on

20 of 52 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  4. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
  5. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  6. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 369
  7. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  8. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  9. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  10. 2021A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscapecited by 98
  11. 2017On Formalizing Fairness in Prediction with Machine Learningcited by 65
  12. 2020Trustworthy AIcited by 62
8 more
  1. 2022Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Farcited by 51
  2. 2020dalex: Responsible Machine Learning with Interactive Explainability and Fairness in Pythoncited by 40
  3. 2019General Fair Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 23
  4. 2022FIFA: Making Fairness More Generalizable in Classifiers Trained on Imbalanced Datacited by 13
  5. 2022Towards A Holistic View of Bias in Machine Learning: Bridging Algorithmic Fairness and Imbalanced Learningcited by 10
  6. 2021Addressing Fairness, Bias and Class Imbalance in Machine Learning: the FBI-losscited by 6
  7. 2021Bias, Fairness, and Accountability with AI and ML Algorithmscited by 3
  8. 2022Fairness and Explainability in Automatic Decision-Making Systems. A challenge for computer science and lawcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

7 papers.