Beyond Internal Data: Bounding and Estimating Fairness from Incomplete Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ensuring fairness in AI systems is critical, especially in high-stakes domains such as lending, hiring, and healthcare. This urgency is reflected in emerging global regulations that mandate fairness assessments and independent bias audits. However, procuring the necessary complete data for fairness testing remains a significant challenge. In industry settings, legal and privacy concerns restrict the collection of demographic data required to assess group disparities, and auditors face practical and cultural challenges in gaining access to data. In practice, data relevant for fairness testing is often split across separate sources: internal datasets held by institutions with predictive attributes, and external public datasets such as census data containing protected attributes, each providing only partial, marginal information. Our work seeks to leverage such available separate data to estimate model fairness when complete data is inaccessible. We propose utilising the available separate data to estimate a set of feasible joint distributions and then compute the set plausible fairness metrics. Through simulation and real experiments, we demonstrate that we can derive meaningful bounds on fairness metrics and obtain reliable estimates of the true metric. Our results demonstrate that this approach can serve as a practical and effective solution for fairness testing in real-world settings where access to complete data is restricted.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2025.
Builds on
16 of 31 references.
References · 16
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
- 2020Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning researchcited by 260
- 2021A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learningcited by 157
- 2019Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural Data in Machine Learningcited by 116
- 2019Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combinationcited by 79
- 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 63
- 2021It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarkscited by 61
- 2020"What We Can't Measure, We Can't Understand": Challenges to Demographic Data Procurement in the Pursuit of Fairnesscited by 56
- 2023Can You Rely on Your Model Evaluation? Improving Model Evaluation with Synthetic Test Datacited by 32
4 more
- 2020Can I Trust My Fairness Metric? Assessing Fairness with Unlabeled Data and Bayesian Inferencecited by 31
- 2024Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regimecited by 18
- 2022Weak Proxies are Sufficient and Preferable for Fairness with Missing Sensitive Attributescited by 17
- 2024Data vs. Model Machine Learning Fairness Testing: An Empirical Studycited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.