Cited by 62Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Missing the missing values: The ugly duckling of fairness in machine learning

Open access
Fernando, Martínez‐Plumed, Cèsar, Ferri, David, Nieves, José, Hernández‐Orallo·2021·International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Abstract

Nowadays, there is an increasing concern in machine learning about the causes underlying unfair decision making, that is, algorithmic decisions discriminating some groups over others, especially with groups that are defined over protected attributes, such as gender, race and nationality. Missing values are one frequent manifestation of all these latent causes: protected groups are more reluctant to give information that could be used against them, sensitive information for some groups can be erased by human operators, or data acquisition may simply be less complete and systematic for minority groups. However, most recent techniques, libraries and experimental results dealing with fairness in machine learning have simply ignored missing data. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the relation between missing values and algorithmic fairness for machine learning: (1) we analyse the sources of missing data and bias, mapping the common causes, (2) we find that rows containing missing values are usually fairer than the rest, which should discourage the consideration of missing values as the uncomfortable ugly data that different techniques and libraries for handling algorithmic bias get rid of at the first occasion, (3) we study the trade-off between performance and fairness when the rows with missing values are used (either because the technique deals with them directly or by imputation methods), and (4) we show that the sensitivity of six different machine-learning techniques to missing values is usually low, which reinforces the view that the rows with missing data contribute more to fairness through the other, nonmissing, attributes. We end the paper with a series of recommended procedures about what to do with missing data when aiming for fair decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/int.22415

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Missing data has been shown to be beneficial in terms of fairness metrics.

    “the effects of missing data (which, as a matter of fact, has been shown to be beneficial in terms of fairness metrics [71])”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

    Section 4 (Mapping Missingness and Unfairness) reports that subsets containing missing values had fairer statistical-parity scores in 10 of 12 cases studied. But Section 6 (Treating Missing Values for Fairness) reports mixed effects on model fairness across datasets and methods. The source supports a potential fairness benefit, not the unqualified implication that missing data is generally beneficial for fairness metrics. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 75 · Cited by 62

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Berk R, Heidari H, Jabbari S, et al. A convex framework for fair regression. arXiv preprint ar- Xiv:1706.02409, 2017.
  2. Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, Lerman K, Galstyan A. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635, 2019. · arXiv
  3. Zafar MB, Valera I, Rodriguez M, Gummadi K, Weller A. From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA. 2017:229-239.
  4. Saleiro P, Kuester B, Stevens A, et al. Aequitas: a bias and fairness audit toolkit. arXiv preprint ar- Xiv:1811.05577, 2018.
  5. Kusner MJ, Loftus J, Russell C, Silva R. Counterfactual fairness. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA. 2017:4066-4076.
  6. Therneau TM, Atkinson EJ. An introduction to recursive partitioning using the RPART routines (Technical Report). Vol. 61. United States: Mayo Foundation; 1997.
  7. Yoon J, Jordon J, van der Schaar M. GAIN: missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets. In: Dy J, Krause A, eds. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (Stock- holmsmässan, Stockholm Sweden, 10-15 Jul 2018), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. Vol 80. PMLR; 2018:5689-5698.

Authors
Fernando, M., Cèsar, F., David, N., & José, H.
Affiliations
  • Joint Research Centre European Commission Seville Spain
  • Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (VRAIN), Universitat Politècnica de València València Spain
Venue
International Journal of Intelligent Systems
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-22
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
3217-3258
ISSN
  • 0884-8173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-111X
OpenAlex
W3136824354
Cited by
62
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España (RTI2018‐094403‐B‐C3)
  • Generalitat Valenciana (PROMETEO/2019/09)
  • European Commission (DG JRC ‐ HUMAINT project)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
missing data, algorithmic fairness, algorithmic discrimination, protected characteristics, missing data imputation, fairness-performance trade-off, missing data bias, sensitive data, fair decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review