The results show that ML data selection can hurt model fairness in a non-negligible number of cases, and compromise model utility in more than half of the cases, and provide interesting research directions for utility- and fairness-aware ML data selection.
Abstract
With the continuous growth in data volumes, efficient data selection has become critical for scaling machine learning (ML) classifiers. Although the existing methods aim to accelerate training without compromising accuracy, their impact on fairness and broader utility remains largely unexplored. This paper presents the first quantitative and qualitative evaluation of these effects through a large-scale empirical analysis comprising 24,395 experiments across 9 real-world datasets, 7 ML models, and several state-of-the-art data selection methods, conducted using ELAPSE, our open-source evaluation framework. Our analysis reveals several key findings and non-trivial observations. The results show that ML data selection can hurt model fairness in a non-negligible number of cases, and compromise model utility in more than half of the cases. These effects differ across datasets, with no single method consistently outperforming the others, and in nearly one-third of the cases, either utility or fairness must be prioritized. Surprisingly, combining data selection with classical bias mitigation increases model unfairness and often degrades model utility. These findings provide interesting research directions for utility- and fairness-aware ML data selection.
An example of its application in the legal field that explores the existing biases in models today is presented and it is hypothesized that the fairness criteria being evaluated cannot all three be satisfied simultaneously, leading to a machine learning model that remains unfair.
Keshav Pillutla, Kevin Fry· Journal of emerging investig...· 0 citations
This work introduces Fairabel, a novel approach that repairs fairness by mutating the training data under the guidance of causal models and multi-objective optimization, and shows that Fairabel reduces ML software bias by 50% on average across three fairness metrics, outperforming the state-of-the-art with a 9% relativ...
Ying Xiao, Zhen-Peng Chen, Yepang Liu et al.· ACM Transactions on Software...· 0 citations
The growing use of machine learning in high-stakes domains raises concerns about fairness. The role of optimization metrics in shaping these outcomes remains underexplored. Using a controlled setup, this study investigates how seven performance metrics used for hyperparameter tuning and model selection affect fairness...
Bianca Matos de Barros, Diego Dimer Rodrigues, G. Oliveira et al.· Anais do LIII Seminário Inte...· 0 citations
This paper develops theoretical bounds on the unfairness and expected loss at deployment, and derives sufficient conditions under which fairness and accuracy can be perfectly transferred via invariant representation learning, and designs a learning algorithm such that fair ML models learned with training data still hav...
This work introduces a method to lower-bound the discrepancy of a classifier: a quantity that jointly captures inaccuracy and unfairness, and develops a computationally efficient procedure for calculating the tightest possible lower bound on the classifier’s discrepancy.
This survey aims to provide a structured perspective on the relationship between non-IID mitigation and fairness and support the development of more balanced and scalable FL systems under non-IID conditions.
Mohannad Alsofyani, Isra Al-Turaiki, H. Mathkour· Electronics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.