Multiaccuracy and Multicalibration via Proxy Groups
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As the use of predictive machine learning algorithms increases in high-stakes decision-making, it is imperative that these algorithms are fair across sensitive groups. However, measuring and enforcing fairness in real-world applications can be challenging due to the missing or incomplete sensitive group information. Proxy-sensitive attributes have been proposed as a practical and effective solution in these settings, but only for parity-based fairness notions. Knowing how to evaluate and control for fairness with missing sensitive group data for newer, different, and more flexible frameworks, such as multiaccuracy and multicalibration, remain unexplored. In this work, we address this gap by demonstrating that in the absence of sensitive group data, proxy-sensitive attributes can provably used to derive actionable upper bounds on the true multiaccuracy and multicalibration violations, providing insights into a predictive model's potential worst-case fairness violations. Additionally, we show that adjusting models to satisfy multiaccuracy and multicalibration across proxy-sensitive attributes can significantly mitigate these violations for the true, but unknown, sensitive groups. Through several experiments on real-world datasets, we illustrate that approximate multiaccuracy and multicalibration can be achieved even when sensitive group data is incomplete or unavailable.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2025.
Builds on
25 of 50 references.
References · 25
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,423
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
- 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
- 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
- 2018Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classificationcited by 222
- 2018Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity When Protected Class Is Unobservedcited by 94
- 2019Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combinationcited by 79
- 2020Robust Optimization for Fairness with Noisy Protected Groupscited by 78
- 2021Omnipredictorscited by 74
13 more
- 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
- 2019Equalized odds postprocessing under imperfect group informationcited by 48
- 2024Multicalibration for Confidence Scoring in LLMscited by 46
- 2021Towards Fair Classifiers Without Sensitive Attributes: Exploring Biases in Related Featurescited by 45
- 2021Evaluating Fairness of Machine Learning Models Under Uncertain and Incomplete Informationcited by 33
- 2023Multicalibration as Boosting for Regressioncited by 33
- 2018Proxy Fairnesscited by 29
- 2024When is Multicalibration Post-Processing Necessary?cited by 18
- 2021Multiaccurate Proxies for Downstream Fairnesscited by 17
- 2022Weak Proxies are Sufficient and Preferable for Fairness with Missing Sensitive Attributescited by 17
- 2022Multicalibrated Regression for Downstream Fairnesscited by 14
- 2021Measuring Model Fairness under Noisy Covariates: A Theoretical Perspectivecited by 7
- 2022Estimating and Controlling for Equalized Odds via Sensitive Attribute Predictorscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.