Fairness of Deep Ensembles: On the interplay between per-group task difficulty and under-representation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ensembling is commonly regarded as an effective way to improve the general performance of models in machine learning, while also increasing the robustness of predictions. When it comes to algorithmic fairness, heterogeneous ensembles, composed of multiple model types, have been employed to mitigate biases in terms of demographic attributes such as sex, age or ethnicity. Moreover, recent work has shown how in multi-class problems even simple homogeneous ensembles may favor performance of the worst-performing target classes. While homogeneous ensembles are simpler to implement in practice, it is not yet clear whether their benefits translate to groups defined not in terms of their target class, but in terms of demographic or protected attributes, hence improving fairness. In this work we show how this simple and straightforward method is indeed able to mitigate disparities, particularly benefiting under-performing subgroups. Interestingly, this can be achieved without sacrificing overall performance, which is a common trade-off observed in bias mitigation strategies. Moreover, we analyzed the interplay between two factors which may result in biases: sub-group under-representation and the inherent difficulty of the task for each group. These results revealed that, contrary to popular assumptions, having balanced datasets may be suboptimal if the task difficulty varies between subgroups. Indeed, we found that a perfectly balanced dataset may hurt both the overall performance and the gap between groups. This highlights the importance of considering the interaction between multiple forces at play in fairness.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2025.
Builds on
21 of 35 references.
References · 21
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,693
- 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,423
- 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 370
- 2020An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlationscited by 310
- 2020Characterising Bias in Compressed Modelscited by 167
- 2019Towards Fairer Datasets: Filtering and Balancing the Distribution of the People Subtree in the ImageNet Hierarchycited by 156
- 2020CheXclusion: Fairness gaps in deep chest X-ray classifierscited by 153
- 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
- 2015Why M Heads are Better than One: Training a Diverse Ensemble of Deep Networkscited by 139
- 2020Estimating Example Difficulty Using Variance of Gradientscited by 97
9 more
- 2022Leveling Down in Computer Vision: Pareto Inefficiencies in Fair Deep Classifierscited by 53
- 2021Representation Matters: Assessing the Importance of Subgroup Allocations in Training Datacited by 31
- 2021Diversity Matters When Learning From Ensemblescited by 27
- 2017Checkpoint Ensembles: Ensemble Methods from a Single Training Processcited by 24
- 2021Orthogonal Ensemble Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 16
- 2023FAIR-Ensemble: When Fairness Naturally Emerges From Deep Ensemblingcited by 11
- 2020Ensembling Low Precision Models for Binary Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 7
- 2024Positive-Sum Fairness: Leveraging Demographic Attributes to Achieve Fair AI Outcomes Without Sacrificing Group Gainscited by 2
- 2024The Disparate Benefits of Deep Ensemblescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.