Identities are not Interchangeable: The Problem of Overgeneralization in Fair Machine Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A key value proposition of machine learning is generalizability: the same methods and model architecture should be able to work across different domains and different contexts. While powerful, this generalization can sometimes go too far, and miss the importance of the specifics. In this work, we look at how fair machine learning has often treated as interchangeable the identity axis along which discrimination occurs. In other words, racism is measured and mitigated the same way as sexism, as ableism, as ageism. Disciplines outside of computer science have pointed out both the similarities and differences between these different forms of oppression, and in this work we draw out the implications for fair machine learning. While certainly not all aspects of fair machine learning need to be tailored to the specific form of oppression, there is a pressing need for greater attention to such specificity than is currently evident. Ultimately, context specificity can deepen our understanding of how to build more fair systems, widen our scope to include currently overlooked harms, and, almost paradoxically, also help to narrow our scope and counter the fear of an infinite number of group-specific methods of analysis.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 126 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2025.
Builds on
36 of 126 references.
References · 36
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
- 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 442
- 2018Learning Not to Learn: Training Deep Neural Networks with Biased Datacited by 255
- 2019Towards Fairness in Visual Recognition: Effective Strategies for Bias Mitigationcited by 252
- 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
- 2022Improving Out-of-Distribution Robustness via Selective Augmentationcited by 202
- 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
- 2021A Fine-Grained Analysis on Distribution Shiftcited by 171
- 2024Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluationscited by 148
- 2021Harms of Gender Exclusivity and Challenges in Non-Binary Representation in Language Technologiescited by 128
24 more
- 2019Towards a Critical Race Methodology in Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 125
- 2023Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisionscited by 124
- 2021Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyondcited by 104
- 2021A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLPcited by 75
- 2022Theories of "Gender" in NLP Bias Researchcited by 62
- 2022Towards Intersectionality in Machine Learning: Including More Identities, Handling Underrepresentation, and Performing Evaluationcited by 59
- 2023"I'm fully who I am": Towards Centering Transgender and Non-Binary Voices to Measure Biases in Open Language Generationcited by 56
- 2022Re-contextualizing Fairness in NLP: The Case of Indiacited by 55
- 2021Fairness for Unobserved Characteristics: Insights from Technological Impacts on Queer Communitiescited by 40
- 2023WEIRD FAccTs: How Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic is FAccT?cited by 28
- 2023Building Socio-culturally Inclusive Stereotype Resources with Community Engagementcited by 25
- 2019Awareness in Practice: Tensions in Access to Sensitive Attribute Data for Antidiscriminationcited by 23
- 2022The four-fifths rule is not disparate impact: a woeful tale of epistemic trespassing in algorithmic fairnesscited by 21
- 2025Fairness through Difference Awareness: Measuring Desired Group Discrimination in LLMscited by 20
- 2018AI Fairness for People with Disabilities: Point of Viewcited by 16
- 2020Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awarenesscited by 15
- 2023An Empirical Analysis of Racial Categories in the Algorithmic Fairness Literaturecited by 8
- 2023On Measuring Fairness in Generative Modelscited by 8
- 2019What is the Point of Fairness? Disability, AI and The Complexity of Justicecited by 7
- 2019Annotating Antisemitic Online Content. Towards an Applicable Definition of Antisemitismcited by 7
- 2024Strategies for Increasing Corporate Responsible AI Prioritizationcited by 6
- 2024The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Modelscited by 5
- 2023Estimating Racial Disparities When Race is Not Observedcited by 4
- 2024Quantifying the Uncertainty of Imputed Demographic Disparity Estimates: The Dual-Bootstrapcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigorcited by 7
- 2026The Homogenization Problem in LLMs: Towards Meaningful Diversity in AI Safetycited by 2
- 2025Fairness-in-the-Workflow: How Machine Learning Practitioners at Big Tech Companies Approach Fairness in Recommender Systemscited by 0
- 2025Representation Invariance and Allocation: When Subgroup Balance Matterscited by 0
- 2026Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Levelcited by 0
- 2026Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Level7 Aug 2026
- 2026The Homogenization Problem in LLMs: Towards Meaningful Diversity in AI Safety3 Jan 2026
- 2025Representation Invariance and Allocation: When Subgroup Balance Matters10 Dec 2025
- 2025Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor17 Jun 2025
- 2025Fairness-in-the-Workflow: How Machine Learning Practitioners at Big Tech Companies Approach Fairness in Recommender Systems26 May 2025