Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes: How Far Are We? (2308.01923v3)

Published 25 Jul 2023 in cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CY, and cs.SE

Abstract: Existing research mostly improves the fairness of Machine Learning (ML) software regarding a single protected attribute at a time, but this is unrealistic given that many users have multiple protected attributes. This paper conducts an extensive study of fairness improvement regarding multiple protected attributes, covering 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods. We analyze the effectiveness of these methods with different datasets, metrics, and ML models when considering multiple protected attributes. The results reveal that improving fairness for a single protected attribute can largely decrease fairness regarding unconsidered protected attributes. This decrease is observed in up to 88.3% of scenarios (57.5% on average). More surprisingly, we find little difference in accuracy loss when considering single and multiple protected attributes, indicating that accuracy can be maintained in the multiple-attribute paradigm. However, the effect on F1-score when handling two protected attributes is about twice that of a single attribute. This has important implications for future fairness research: reporting only accuracy as the ML performance metric, which is currently common in the literature, is inadequate.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (67)
  1. 1996. The Adult Census Income dataset. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/adult.
  2. 2003. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors#intersectional.
  3. 2015. The Mep15 dataset. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail.jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-181.
  4. 2016. The Compas dataset. https://github.com/propublica/compas-analysis.
  5. 2016. The Default dataset. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/default+of+credit+card+clients.
  6. 2016. Machine bias. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
  7. 2016. The Mep16 dataset. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail.jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-192.
  8. 2018. Study finds gender and skin-type bias in commercial artificial-intelligence systems. https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212.
  9. 2020. Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-publishes-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic-decision-making/main-report-cdei-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic-decision-making.
  10. 2021. When good algorithms go sexist: Why and how to advance AI gender equity. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/when_good_algorithms_go_sexist_why_and_how_to_advance_ai_gender_equity.
  11. 2024. Replication package. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24943590.v3.
  12. Impact of anti-discrimination laws on credit scoring. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 9 (2004), 22–33.
  13. AI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (2019), 4:1–4:15.
  14. The significant effects of data sampling approaches on software defect prioritization and classification. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2017. 364–373.
  15. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research 50, 1 (2021), 3–44.
  16. Sumon Biswas and Hridesh Rajan. 2020. Do the machine learning models on a crowd sourced platform exhibit bias? An empirical study on model fairness. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2020. 642–653.
  17. Sumon Biswas and Hridesh Rajan. 2021. Fair preprocessing: Towards understanding compositional fairness of data transformers in machine learning pipeline. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2021. 981–993.
  18. Sumon Biswas and Hridesh Rajan. 2023. Fairify: Fairness verification of neural networks. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2023. 1546–1558.
  19. Building classifiers with independency constraints. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. 13–18.
  20. Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. 2010. Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 21, 2 (2010), 277–292.
  21. Classification with fairness constraints: A meta-algorithm wit provable guarantees. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019. 319–328.
  22. Bias in machine learning software: Why? How? What to do?. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2021. 429–440.
  23. Fairway: A way to build fair ML software. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2020. 654–665.
  24. Fairness testing: A comprehensive survey and analysis of trends. CoRR abs/2207.10223 (2022).
  25. MAAT: a novel ensemble approach to addressing fairness and performance bugs for machine learning software. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022. 1122–1134.
  26. A comprehensive empirical study of bias mitigation methods for machine learning classifiers. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 32, 4 (2023), 106:1–106:30.
  27. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2017. 797–806.
  28. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, deminist theory and antiracist politics. Feminist Legal Theories (1989), 139–167.
  29. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021), 6478–6490.
  30. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 259–268.
  31. “Fairness analysis” in requirements assignments. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2008. 115–124.
  32. An intersectional definition of fairness. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020. 1918–1921.
  33. Characterizing intersectional group fairness with worst-case comparisons. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Inclusion, AIDBEI 2021. 22–34.
  34. Towards understanding fairness and its composition in ensemble machine learning. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2023. 1533–1545.
  35. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, NIPS 2016. 3315–3323.
  36. Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing (2023).
  37. Max Hort and Federica Sarro. 2021. Did you do your homework? Raising awareness on software fairness and discrimination. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2021. 1322–1326.
  38. Fairea: A model behaviour mutation approach to benchmarking bias mitigation methods. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2021. 994–1006.
  39. Faisal Kamiran and Toon Calders. 2011. Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowledge and Information Systems 33, 1 (2011), 1–33.
  40. Discrimination aware decision tree learning. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2010. 869–874.
  41. Decision theory for discrimination-aware classification. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2012. 924–929.
  42. Exploiting reject option in classification for social discrimination control. Information Science 425 (2018), 18–33.
  43. Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, ECML/PKDD 2012. 35–50.
  44. Precise and robust detection of advertising fraud. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 43rd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2019. 776–785.
  45. Robust statistical methods for empirical software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 22, 2 (2017), 579–630.
  46. Handling imbalanced datasets: A review. GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering 30, 1 (2006), 25–36.
  47. Dark-skin individuals are at more risk on the street: Unmasking fairness issues of autonomous driving systems. CoRR abs/2308.02935 (2023).
  48. Training data debugging for the fairness of machine learning software. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022. 2215–2227.
  49. Henry B Mann and Donald R Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1947), 50–60.
  50. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys 54, 6 (2021), 115:1–115:35.
  51. Rebecca Moussa and Federica Sarro. 2022. On the use of evaluation measures for defect prediction studies. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2022. 101–113.
  52. Research design and statistical analysis. Routledge.
  53. FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-Based Rebalancing of Protected Attributes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (2023), 2426–2439.
  54. On fairness and calibration. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, NIPS 2017. 5680–5689.
  55. D Ramyachitra and Parasuraman Manikandan. 2014. Imbalanced dataset classification and solutions: A review. International Journal of Computing and Business Research 5, 4 (2014), 1–29.
  56. Federica Sarro. 2023. Search-based software engineering in the era of modern software systems. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2023.
  57. Software fairness: An analysis and survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08809 (2022).
  58. RULER: Discriminative and iterative adversarial training for deep neural network fairness. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022. 1173–1184.
  59. András Vargha and Harold D Delaney. 2000. A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25, 2 (2000), 101–132.
  60. Unlocking fairness: A trade-off revisited. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019. 8780–8789.
  61. Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classification. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2017. 962–970.
  62. Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES 2018. 335–340.
  63. Jie M. Zhang and Mark Harman. 2021. Ignorance and prejudice in software fairness. In Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2021. 1436–1447.
  64. Machine learning testing: Survey, landscapes and horizons. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 2 (2022), 1–36.
  65. Mengdi Zhang and Jun Sun. 2022. Adaptive fairness improvement based on causality analysis. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022. 6–17.
  66. White-box fairness testing through adversarial sampling. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2020. 949–960.
  67. NeuronFair: Interpretable white-box fairness testing through biased neuron identification. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022. 1519–1531.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Zhenpeng Chen (39 papers)
  2. Jie M. Zhang (39 papers)
  3. Federica Sarro (40 papers)
  4. Mark Harman (31 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com