mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Understanding Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Machine Learning Models: Does Promoting Fairness Undermine Performance?

arXiv 2411.17374 ↗First posted 26 Nov 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.IRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fairness in both Machine Learning (ML) predictions and human decision-making is essential, yet both are susceptible to different forms of bias, such as algorithmic and data-driven in ML, and cognitive or subjective in humans. In this study, we examine fairness using a real-world university admissions dataset comprising 870 applicant profiles, leveraging three ML models: XGB, Bi-LSTM, and KNN, alongside BERT embeddings for textual features. To evaluate individual fairness, we introduce a consistency metric that quantifies agreement in decisions among ML models and human experts with diverse backgrounds. Our analysis reveals that ML models surpass human evaluators in fairness consistency by margins ranging from 14.08% to 18.79%. Our findings highlight the potential of using ML to enhance fairness in admissions while maintaining high accuracy, advocating a hybrid approach combining human judgement and ML models.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Nov 2024.

Builds on

6 of 17 references.

References · 6

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  2. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
  3. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 370
  4. 2022A Survey on the Fairness of Recommender Systemscited by 102
  5. 2022Fairness in Recommendation: Foundations, Methods and Applicationscited by 27
  6. 2023Auditing for Human Expertisecited by 12

Built on by

Not cited yet.