Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classification
Open accessAbstract
Prediction systems are successfully deployed in applications ranging from disease diagnosis, to predicting credit worthiness, to image recognition. Even when the overall accuracy is high, these systems may exhibit systematic biases that harm specific subpopulations; such biases may arise inadvertently due to underrepresentation in the data used to train a machine-learning model, or as the result of intentional malicious discrimination. We develop a rigorous framework of *multiaccuracy* auditing and post-processing to ensure accurate predictions across *identifiable subgroups*. Our algorithm, MULTIACCURACY-BOOST, works in any setting where we have black-box access to a predictor and a relatively small set of labeled data for auditing; importantly, this black-box framework allows for improved fairness and accountability of predictions, even when the predictor is minimally transparent. We prove that MULTIACCURACY-BOOST converges efficiently and show that if the initial model is accurate on an identifiable subgroup, then the post-processed model will be also. We experimentally demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach to improve the accuracy among minority subgroups in diverse applications (image classification, finance, population health). Interestingly, MULTIACCURACY-BOOST can improve subpopulation accuracy (e.g. for "black women") even when the sensitive features (e.g. "race", "gender") are not given to the algorithm explicitly.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces multiaccuracy, a black-box post-processing framework that audits a classifier for systematic bias across identifiable subpopulations and iteratively updates it with Multiaccuracy Boost. It proves convergence and do-no-harm guarantees and shows improved subgroup accuracy in gender detection, adult income, and semi-synthetic disease prediction without requiring sensitive features.
Key findings
- On PPB gender detection, the initial model had 9.9% overall error but 39.8% error on dark-skinned females and 0.0% on light-skinned males; Multiaccuracy Boost reduced overall error to 3.9% and dark-skinned female error to 12.5%, while light-skinned male error changed from 0.0% to 0.8%.
- On Adult Income, Multiaccuracy Boost improved overall error from 19.3% to 14.7% and improved each subgroup, outperforming subgroup-specific models (SS overall 19.7%); for example, Black female error went from 4.8% to 4.5% (SS 5.5%).
- On semi-synthetic UK Biobank disease prediction, Multiaccuracy Boost lowered overall error from 18.9% to 16.0% and old female error from 36.8% to 26.5%, better than subgroup-specific models (SS old female 37.6%).
- Theoretically, the do-no-harm guarantee bounds post-processed error on an audited subpopulation as er_S(f;y) ≤ 3·er_S(f0;y) + 4β, and Algorithm 1 converges to a (C, α)-multiaccurate hypothesis in T = O(ℓ_D(f0;y)/α²) iterations from m = Õ(T·d(C)+log(1/δ)/α²) samples.
Methods
- Setting: black-box access to f0 and a small labeled validation sample from D; an auditor A learns a class C to find functions h correlating with the residual f−y; Multiaccuracy Boost partitions X by f0 into X0 and X1, audits X, X0, and X1, selects the largest residual, and applies multiplicative weights updates until (C, α)-multiaccuracy is reached.
- Experiments: Gender detection used an inception-resnet-v1 trained on CelebA (>200,000 images; 98.4% test accuracy), audited on PPB (415 test, 855 audit) with ridge regression on a VAE/Facenet representation, compared to white-box retraining of the last two layers. Adult Income used 45,222 samples and 14 attributes, with 27,145 training, 15,060 test, and 3,017 audit samples, decision tree regression (max depth 5), and sensitive features removed. Semi-synthetic disease prediction used 40,000 UK Biobank individuals with 60 phenotype features, four gender-age groups with polynomial label functions of orders 1, 4, 2, and 6, 32,000 training and 4,000 audit samples, and decision tree regression.
- Analysis: theoretical proofs of Proposition 1, Theorem 2, and Theorem 3 are given in the appendix; empirical evaluation reports classification error on overall and subgroup populations in Tables 1–3.
Limitations
- Stated: Multiaccuracy works only to the extent that the auditor can identify subgroups where f0 tends to make mistakes; if the mistakes appear overly complicated to the bounded auditor, the auditor will not identify them. The paper also notes that one must balance the choice of C and the number of iterations to avoid overfitting, and that if the auditor learns an expressive enough class, the algorithm will start to overfit at some point.
- Stated: The theory assumes fresh samples per iteration, and in practice with few samples one may need noise-addition techniques to reduce overfitting. The data distribution D should reflect the true population or be aspirational, and important subpopulations must be sufficiently represented; the classification error guarantee improves as γ, the density of the protected subpopulation, grows. In the gender detection case study, CelebA lacks race labels, so subpopulation accuracy could not be evaluated on that set, and PPB is described as very small and a stress test.
- Evident: Empirical validation is limited to binary classification tasks and specific datasets; effectiveness depends on audit features being correlated with unobserved sensitive categories, as the paper states. Formal guarantees also depend on A agnostically learning the class C.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 16 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingnone given
If the initial model is accurate on an identifiable subgroup, then the post-processed model will also be accurate on that subgroup.
“Importantly, if the initial model is accurate on an identifiable subgroup, then the post-processed model will be also.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The paper proves convergence guarantees for Multiaccuracy Boost.
“We prove convergence guarantees for Multiaccuracy Boost and show that post-processing for multiaccuracy may actually improve the overall classification accuracy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Multiaccuracy Boost can improve subpopulation accuracy even when sensitive features such as race and gender are not known to the algorithm.
“Multiaccuracy Boost can improve subpopulation accuracy (e.g. for”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Multiaccuracy Boost improves overall accuracy at each step.
“We prove guarantees on the convergence rate of the algorithm and show that it improves overall accuracy at each step.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Enforcing multiaccuracy actually improves overall accuracy by identifying subpopulations where the initial models systematically erred.
“As suggested by the theory, enforcing multiaccuracy actually improves the overall accuracy, by identifying subpopulations where the initial models systematically erred”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingreasoning
The do-no-harm property guarantees that on any subpopulation S that A audits, the classification error cannot increase significantly from f0 to the post-processed classifier.
“In a nutshell, the property guarantees that on any subpopulation S ⊆ X that A audits, the classification error cannot increase significantly from f 0 to the post-processed classifier.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The auditing algorithm A can identify a very rich class of overlapping sets.
- Findingnone given
Post-processing does not significantly affect performance on groups where accuracy was already high.
“further, post-processing does not significantly affect performance on groups where accuracy was already high.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The initial inception-resnet-v1 gender classification model trained on CelebA achieved 98.4% test accuracy on CelebA for binary gender classification.
“The resulting test accuracy on CelebA for binary gender classification is 98.4%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In an experimental case study based on Gender Shades, after post-processing, accuracy improves across minority groups even though minority-status is not explicitly given to the post-processing algorithm as a feature.
“After post-processing, the accuracy improves across these minority groups, even though minority-status is not explicitly given to the post-processing algorithm as a feature.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
For any subpopulation S with Pr[x ∈ S] ≥ γ, if A audits χ_S and its negation and f is the output of Algorithm 1 with α ≤ βγ, then er_S(f; y) ≤ 3 • er_S(f0; y) + 4β.
“Then the classification error of f on the subset S is bounded as er S (f ; y) ≤ 3 • er S (f 0 ; y) + 4β .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Post-processing for multiaccuracy may actually improve overall classification accuracy.
“We prove convergence guarantees for Multiaccuracy Boost and show that post-processing for multiaccuracy may actually improve the overall classification accuracy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Multiaccuracy post-processing improves generalization error before overfitting.
“we show empirically that multiaccuracy post-processing improves the generalization error before overfitting.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The multiaccuracy auditor can be used to produce examples of inputs where the predictor is erring significantly.
“Specifically, the multiaccuracy auditor can be used to produce examples of inputs where the predictor is erring significantly.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
When Multiaccuracy Boost terminates, f_T will be (C, α)-multiaccurate.
“From the stopping condition, it is clear that when the algorithm terminates, f T will be (C, α)-multiaccurate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Multiaccuracy Boost outputs a hypothesis f that is (C, α)-multiaccurate.
“outputs a hypothesis f : X → [0, 1] that is (C, α)-multiaccurate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Multiaccuracy Boost exhibits a do-no-harm guarantee: if f0 has low classification error on some subpopulation S identified by A, then the resulting classification error on S cannot increase significantly.
“Importantly, we adapt these algorithms so that Multiaccuracy Boost exhibits what we call the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Empirically, classification accuracy on the held-out test set tends to improve over D after multiaccuracy post-processing.
“empirically, we observe that classification accuracy (on held-out test set) tends to improve over D after multiaccuracy post-processing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
If there is a function in C that correlates well with the label function on a significant subpopulation S, then multiaccuracy translates into a guarantee on classification accuracy on S.
“That is, if there is a function in C that correlates well with the label function on a significant subpopulation S, then multi-accuracy translates into a guarantee on the classification accuracy on this subpopulation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The least active images in the first round of auditing are men in suits.
“The least active images (second row) are men in suits”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The only way the authors were able to report these accuracy disparities was by having access to a rich data set where gender and race were labeled.
“Importantly, the only way we were able to report these accuracy disparities was by having access to a rich data set where gender and race were labeled.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Models trained in good faith on unbalanced data may exhibit significant biases on minority populations.
“we've demonstrated that models trained in good faith on unbalanced data may exhibit significant biases on the minority populations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the first round of auditing, the three highest-scoring images are all women, both black and white.
“In the first round of auditing, the three highest-scoring images (top row) are all women, both black and white.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
As Table 3 shows, Multiaccuracy Boost significantly lowers the classification error in the old female population.
“As Table 3 shows, Multiaccuracy Boost significantly lowers the classification error in the old female population.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In our experiments, standard supervised learning optimizes for overall performance, leading to settings where certain subpopulations incur substantially worse error rates.
“In our experiments, we observe that standard supervised learning optimizes for overall performance, leading to settings where certain subpopulations incur substantially worse error rates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Machine learning predictors often have systematic biases that harm specific subgroups, especially subgroups that are minorities in the training data.
“Despite the successes of machine learning at complex tasks that involve making predictions about people, there is growing evidence that”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
In the Gender Shades study, the systems were significantly less accurate on female subjects compared to males.
“the system was significantly less accurate on female subjects compared to males”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
In the Gender Shades study, classification accuracy differed between dark-skinned females and light-skinned males by as much as 34%.
“classification accuracy differed between these groups by as much as 34%!”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
In the Gender Shades study, the systems were significantly less accurate on dark-skinned individuals compared to light-skinned individuals.
“and on dark-skinned individuals compared to light-skinned.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationnone given
Multiaccuracy Boost works in any setting where there is black-box access to a predictor and a relatively small set of labeled data for auditing.
“Our algorithm, Multiaccuracy Boost, works in any setting where we have black-box access to a predictor and a relatively small set of labeled data for auditing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
If the auditor A learns an expressive enough class of functions, then the algorithm will start to overfit at some point.
“Indeed, if the auditor A learns an expressive enough class of functions, then our algorithm will start to overfit at some point”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Requiring multiaccuracy with respect to the class of all statistical tests requires learning the function y(x) exactly, which is information-theoretically impossible from a small sample.
“Requiring multiaccuracy with respect to such a C, however, requires learning the function y(x) exactly, which is informationtheoretically impossible from a small sample.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Achieving the paper's notion of fairness need not adversely affect the utility of the classifier.
“In this sense, achieving our notion of fairness need not adversely affect the utility of the classifier.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The auditing algorithm A can identify a very rich class of overlapping sets.
- Interpretationreasoning
If Algorithm 1 is used to post-process a model that already achieves high accuracy on the validation distribution, the resulting model's accuracy should not deteriorate in significant ways.
“Thus, if we use Algorithm 1 to post-process a model that is already achieves high accuracy on the validation distribution the resulting model's accuracy should not deteriorate in significant ways”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The auditing algorithm A can identify a very rich class of overlapping sets.
- Interpretationown data
As long as there are features in the audit set correlated with the unobserved human categories, Multiaccuracy Boost is effective at improving classification accuracy across these categories.
“As long as there are features in the audit set correlated with the (unobserved) human categories, then Multiaccuracy Boost is effective at improving the classification accuracy across these categories.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
If C is a learnable class of functions, then (C, α)-multiaccuracy guarantees accuracy on all efficiently-identifiable subpopulations.
“In practice, if we take C to be a learnable class of functions, then (C, α)-multiaccuracy guarantees accuracy on all efficiently-identifiable subpopulations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Partitioning the search space X based on the predictions of f0 helps ensure that the output f maintains the initial accuracy of f0.
“Partitioning the search space X based on the predictions of f 0 helps to ensure that the f we output maintains the initial accuracy of f 0”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If C is the class of depth-4 decision trees, then multiaccuracy guarantees unbiasedness on subpopulations defined by combinations of race, gender, and two other features, including overlapping groups beyond traditionally-protected populations.
“For instance, if we took C to be the class of depth-4 decision trees, then multiaccuracy guarantees unbiasedness, not just on the marginal populations defined by race and separately gender, but by the subpopulations defined by the combinations of race, gender, and two other (possibly”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Multiaccuracy auditing may serve as an effective diagnostic and interpretation tool to help developers identify systematic biases in their models.
“We demonstrate that multiaccuracy auditing may serve as an effective diagnostic and interpretation tool to help developers identify systematic biases in their models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Our approach to post-processing, which uses a learning algorithm as a fairness auditor, differs from [16] in important ways.
“Our approach to post-processing, which uses a learning algorithm as a fairness auditor differs from [16] in important ways.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [16]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Suits may be a highly predictive feature of being a man according to the original classifier f0.
“suggesting that suits may be a highly predictive feature of being a man according to the original classifier, f 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The do-no-harm property guarantees that if the initial predictor f0 has small classification error on some identifiable group, then the resulting post-processed model will also have small classification error on this group.
“This property guarantees that if the initial predictor f 0 has small classification error on some identifiable group, then the resulting post-processed model will also have small classification error on this group.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Absent any identification of the subpopulations on which the model is underperforming, collecting additional training data may not actually improve performance across the board.
“Absent any identification of the subpopulations on which the model is underperforming, collecting additional training data may not actually improve performance across the board.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
By applying multiaccuracy over real-valued functions (as opposed to boolean functions), we can get efficient algorithms that provably satisfy (C, α)-multiaccuracy for nontrivial classes C, specifically linear hypotheses.
“Additionally, by applying mutliaccuracy over real-valued functions (as opposed to boolean functions), we can get efficient algorithms that provably satisfy (C, α)-multiaccuracy for nontrivial classes C (specifically, linear hypotheses).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Multiaccuracy allows us to protect a rich class of overlapping subpopulations without explicit knowledge of the vulnerable populations.
“In contrast, multiaccuracy allows us to protect a rich class of overlapping subpopulations without explicit knowledge of the vulnerable populations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
It becomes important that we leverage the expressiveness and initial accuracy of f0 if we are to obtain strong performance using the multiaccuracy approach.
“Thus, it becomes important that we leverage the expressiveness (and initial accuracy) of f 0 if we are to obtain strong performance using the multiaccuracy approach.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
In the second round, after one step of Multiaccuracy Boost, the auditor seems to hone in on the dark-skinned women subpopulation as the region of bias.
“In the second round, after the classifier has been improved by one step of Multiaccuracy Boost, the auditor seems to hone in on the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The first round of audit seems to identify gender as the axis of bias in f0.
“Overall the first round of audit seems to identify gender as the axis of bias in f 0 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
While applicable in some settings, the decoupled classifier approach of Dwork et al. [8] may at times be untenable.
“While applicable in some settings, at times, this approach may be untenable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Multiaccuracy works to the extent that the auditor can identify specific subgroups where the original classifier f0 tends to make mistakes.
“Multiaccuracy works to the extent that the auditor can identify specific subgroups where the original classifier f 0 tends to make mistakes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Even when subgroups are identified, there are often not enough samples to train accurate classifiers on each subgroup separately.
“Even when the subgroups are identified, we often do not have enough samples to train accurate classifiers on each subgroup separately.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Even when subgroups are identified, there are often not enough samples to train accurate classifiers on each subgroup separately.
- Premisenone given
The subgroup-specific models require explicit access to the sensitive features of gender and race.
“Importantly, the subgroup-specific models requires explicit access to the sensitive features of gender and race.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
In realistic settings, post-processing for multiaccuracy helps to mitigate systematic biases in predictors across sensitive subpopulations, even when the identifiers for these subpopulations are not given to the auditor explicitly.
“We show that in realistic settings, post-processing for multiaccuracy helps to mitigate systematic biases in predictors across sensitive subpopulations, even when the identifiers for these subpopulations are not given to the auditor explicitly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Multiaccuracy auditing and post-processing is applicable broadly in supervised learning tasks, not just in image classification applications.
“Multiaccuracy auditing and post-processing is applicable broadly in supervised learning tasks, not just in image classification applications.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The subpopulations on which a classifier errs may be efficiently-identifiable.
“Our empirical results suggest, that the subpopulations on which a classifier errs may be efficiently-identifiable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Multiaccuracy auditing is limited: if the mistakes appear overly-complicated to the bounded auditor, then the auditor will not be able to identify these mistakes.
“Thus, multiaccuracy auditing is limited: if the mistakes appear overly-complicated to the bounded auditor, then the auditor will not be able to identify these mistakes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The auditor is bounded.
- Interpretationreasoning
Requiring subgroup identification is not feasible in many applications where race or more granular categories are not given.
“This is not feasible in the many applications where, say, race or more granular categories are not given.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: In many applications, race or more granular categories are not given.
- Interpretationown data
The power of multiaccuracy lies in the fact that in many settings, we can identify issues with f0 from a small amount of audit data.
“The power of multiaccuracy lies in the fact that in many settings, we can identify issues with f 0 from a small amount of audit data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Training a classifier for each subgroup, or explicitly adding subgroup accuracy into the training objective, assumes that the subgroup is already identified in the data.
“Training a classifier for each subgroup, or explicitly adding subgroup accuracy into the training objective, assumes that the subgroup is already identified in the data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The adult income example illustrates that multiaccuracy can help to boost the overall accuracy of a black-box predictor in a data efficient manner.
“This example illustrates that multiaccuracy can help to boost the overall accuracy of a black-box predictor in a data efficient manner.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Our experiments improving the accuracy of a model trained on CelebA on the PPB test sets suggest a lightweight black-box alternative to more sophisticated transfer learning techniques.
“In particular, our experiments improving the accuracy of a model trained on CelebA on the PPB test sets suggests a lightweight black-box alternative to more sophisticated transfer learning techniques, which may warrant further investigation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Theorem 3: Let α, δ > 0 and suppose A agnostic learns a class C ⊆ [-1, 1]^X of dimension d(C). Then, using η = O(α), Algorithm 1 converges to a (C, α)-multiaccurate hypothesis fT in T = O(lD(f0;y)/α^2) iterations from m = Õ(T·d(C)+log(1/δ)/α^2) samples with probability at least 1-δ over the random samples.
“Theorem 3. Let α, δ > 0 and suppose A agnostic learns a class C ⊆ [-1, 1] X of dimension d(C).Then, using η = O(α), Algorithm 1 converges to a (C, α)-multiaccurate hypothesis f T in T = O ℓ D (f 0 ;y) α 2 iterations from m = Õ T • d(C)+log(1/δ ) α 2 samples with probability at least 1 -δ over the random samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: A agnostic learns a class C ⊆ [-1, 1]^X of dimension d(C).
- May combine two claims. 19
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataMultiaccuracy Boost, which only accesses f0 as a black-box, performs comparably and sometimes even better than very strong white-box alternatives that have full access to f0.
“We show that Multiaccuracy Boost, which only accesses f 0 as a black-box, performs comparably and sometimes even better than very strong white-box alternatives which has full access to f 0 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor the initial model, the error rate is much worse for females compared to males and worse for blacks compared to non-blacks.
“Even though the overall accuracy of this f 0 is high, the error rate is much worse for females compared to males and worse for blacks compared to non-blacks”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the paper's experiments, auditing with ridge regression and decision tree regression are both effective at identifying subpopulations on which the model is underperforming.
“Concretely, in our experiments, we audit with ridge regression and decision tree regression; both auditors are effective at identifying subpopulations on which the model is underperforming.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCelebA images are not labeled with race information, and as such, the authors were unable to evaluate subpopulation classification accuracy on this set.
“indeed, the CelebA images are not labeled with race information, and as such, we were unable to evaluate the subpopulation classification accuracy on this set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingcitationThe initial classification error on black females is significant, whereas on white males it is near 0%.
“For instance, the initial classification error on black females is significant, whereas on white males, it is near 0%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataMultiaccuracy Boost converged in 5 iterations and substantially reduced error across subpopulations.
“Multiaccuracy Boost converged in 5 iterations and substantially reduced error across subpopulations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe classification error improves significantly on DF but does not hurt the accuracy on LM significantly.
“the classification error improves significantly on DF but does not hurt the accuracy on LM significantly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe old female subpopulation had the least representation in D0.
“Note that this subpopulation had the least representation in D 0 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe f0 we discover performs moderately well on every subpopulation, with the exception of old females (OF) where the classification error is significantly higher.
“The f 0 we discover performs moderately well on every subpopulation, with the exception of old females (OF) where the classification error is significantly higher.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAs shown in Table 2, multiaccuracy post-processing achieves better accuracy both in aggregate and for each of the subgroups in the adult income prediction task.
“As shown in Table 2, multiaccuracy post-processing achieves better accuracy both in aggregate and for each of the subgroups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationIn the Gender Shades study, three commercial face recognition systems achieved roughly 90% accuracy at gender detection on a popular benchmark.
“While all systems achieved roughly 90% accuracy at gender detection on a popular benchmark”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2]
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationcitationThe paper's notion of multiaccuracy differs from parity-based notions of fairness.
“Our notion of multiaccuracy differs from parity-based notions of fairness [7,11,16], and is reasonable in settings such as gender detection where we would like to boost the classifier's accuracy across subgroups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [7] source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [11]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [16]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenMultiaccuracy auditing makes no assumptions about the original classifier and can handle inadvertent and malicious forms of discrimination.
“Multiaccuracy auditing makes no assumptions about the original classifier; in particular, it can handle inadvertent and malicious forms of discrimination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe proof of Theorem 2 reveals that the worst-case bound is very pessimistic and can be improved with stronger assumptions.
“Further, the proof of Theorem 2 reveals that this worst-case bound is very pessimistic and can be improved with stronger assumptions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe classification error guarantee of Proposition 1 improves as γ, the density of the protected subpopulation S, grows.
“the classification error guarantee of Proposition 1 improves as γ , the density of the protected subpopulation S, grows.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe algorithm evaluates statistics like E[h(x)•(f(x)-y(x))], which can be estimated accurately and efficiently from a small sample.
“Additionally, as described, the algorithm evaluates statistics like E x ∼D [h(x)•(f (x)-y(x))], which we can estimate accurately and efficiently from a small sample.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationOur post-processing algorithm, Multiaccuracy Boost, builds on the algorithm given in [13], providing the additional do-no-harm property.
“Our post-processing algorithm, Multiaccuracy Boost, builds on the algorithm given in [13], providing the additional”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenEven if the attributes of interest are available, it may not always be obvious which subpopulations require special attention.
“Even if this information is available, a priori, it may not always be obvious which subpopulations require special attention.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe multiaccuracy framework can be applied very broadly; we can post-process any initial model f0 given only blackbox access to f0 and a small set of labeled validation data.
“The multiaccuracy framework can be applied very broadly; importantly, we can post-process any initial model f 0 given only blackbox access to f 0 and a small set of labeled validation data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationcitationOur work directly extends the approach of Hébert-Johnson et al. [13], adapting their work to the binary classification setting.
“Our work directly extends the approach of [13], adapting their work to the binary classification setting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationMultiaccuracy post-processing may be applicable in domain adaptation settings, particularly under label distribution shift, when the learner gets a small number of labeled samples from the new distribution.
“In particular, multiaccuracy post-processing may be applicable in domain adaptation settings, particularly under label distribution shift as studied recently in [22], but when the learner gets a small number of labeled samples from the new distribution.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [22]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIn our setting, we do not restrict ourselves to an explicitly-defined hypothesis class, so we can augment the current model using the auditor; these augmentations improve the accuracy of the model.
“In our setting, we do not restrict ourselves to an explicitly-defined hypothesis class, so we can augment the current model using the auditor; these augmentations improve the accuracy of the model.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAt a technical level, our post-processing algorithm is similar to gradient boosting.
“At a technical level, our post-processing algorithm is similar to gradient boosting [10,24].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [10]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [24]
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenRather than using an expressive class of predictors as the base classifiers to learn the function directly, we focus on the regime where data is limited and we must restrict our attention to simple classes.
“Rather than using an expressive class of predictors as the base classifiers to learn the function directly, we focus on the regime where data is limited and we must restrict our attention to simple classes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationDecoupling the classification problem requires that we have the attributes of interest in the data set and that the groups we wish to protect are partitioned by these attributes.
“First, decoupling the classification problem requires that we have the attributes of interest in the data set and that the groups we wish to protect are partitioned by these attributes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8]
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataMultiaccuracy Boost is effective in two other settings: the adult income prediction task and a semisynthetic disease prediction task.
“We demonstrate the effectiveness of Multiaccuracy Boost in two other settings: the adult income prediction task and a semisynthetic disease prediction task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataMultiaccuracy provides a framework for fairness in classification by improving the accuracy in identifiable subgroups, in a way that suffers no tradeoff between accuracy and utility.
“Multiaccuracy provides a framework for fairness in classification by improving the accuracy in identifiable subgroups, in a way that suffers no tradeoff between accuracy and utility.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataPost-processing serves as an effective tool for improving the accuracy across important subpopulations, and does not harm the populations that are already classified well.
“We demonstrate -both theoretically and empirically -that post-processing serves as an effective tool for improving the accuracy across important subpopulations, and does not harm the populations that are already classified well.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The important subpopulations are sufficiently represented in the validation data distribution D.
“we assume that the important subpopulations are sufficiently represented on D”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The auditing algorithm A uses a fresh sample D_t ∼ D^m per iteration.
“we assume that A uses a fresh sample D t ∼ D m per iteration.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The auditing algorithm A can identify a very rich class of overlapping sets.
“As we assume A can identify a very rich class of overlapping sets”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data from certain minority populations is less available than from the majority population.
“often for historical and social reasons, data from certain minority populations is less available than from the majority population.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the common setting where the learned model is provided as a service, there may not be sufficient incentive for the service provider to retrain the model.
“there may not be sufficient incentive (financial, social, etc.) for the service provider to retrain the model.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many applications, race or more granular categories are not given.
“This is not feasible in the many applications where, say, race or more granular categories are not given.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even when subgroups are identified, there are often not enough samples to train accurate classifiers on each subgroup separately.
“Even when the subgroups are identified, we often do not have enough samples to train accurate classifiers on each subgroup separately.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The auditor is bounded.
“if the mistakes appear overly-complicated to the bounded auditor”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A agnostic learns a class C ⊆ [-1, 1]^X of dimension d(C).
“suppose A agnostic learns a class C ⊆ [-1, 1] X of dimension d(C).”
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?
[170,175] undertake a similar approach under different settings.
“[170,175] undertake a similar approach under diferent settings.”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [175]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Adult income SS overall error conflicts with race-group errors
MinorWeighting the reported Black and White SS errors by their population shares gives about 18.99%, rather than the reported overall error of 19.7%.
“SS 19.7 9.5 24.6 10.5 19.9 5.5 25.3”
“All F M B W BF WM D 100 32.3 67.7 9.7 90.3 4.8 62.9”
Equation (17) is not equal to equation (16)
MinorThe two displayed expressions are not algebraically equal: equation (17) drops the factor of 3 on the S1 error term and changes the β terms from a total of 2β to 4β, since S0 and S1 partition S.
“≤ Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 0 ] • 3τ 0 + 2β Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 0 ] + Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 1 ] • 3τ 1 + 2β Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 1 ](16)”
“= 3 • Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 0 ] • τ 0 + Pr x ∼S [x ∈ S 1 ] • τ 1 + 4β(17)”
Adult income MA overall error conflicts with race-group errors
MinorBlack and White account for 9.7% and 90.3% of this population. Their reported MA errors of 9.4% and 15.0% imply an overall error of about 14.46%, not the reported 14.7%; rounding of the displayed inputs cannot account for the difference.
“MA 14.7 7.2 18.3 9.4 15.0 4.5 18.3”
“All F M B W BF WM D 100 32.3 67.7 9.7 90.3 4.8 62.9”
Cites
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731 · see citing works
FaceNet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering
Schroff, F., Kalenichenko, D., & Philbin, J. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298682 · Cited by 15,267 · see citing works
Sudlow, C., Gallacher, J., Allen, N., Beral, V., Burton, P., Danesh, J., Downey, P., Elliott, P., Green, J., Landray, M., et al. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779 · Cited by 12,728 · see citing works
Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wild
Liu, Z., Luo, P., Wang, X., & Tang, X. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.425 · Cited by 7,747 · see citing works
Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning
Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V., & Alemi, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11231 · Cited by 4,636 · see citing works
(2018) · Cited by 3,510 · see citing works
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501 · see citing works
Advances in neural information processing systems 11
Peter Sollich, A. (1999) · Cited by 3,168 · see citing works
Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02413 · Cited by 2,536 · see citing works
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-12)Preprint
Langford, J. C., & Pineau, J. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.4676 · Cited by 1,687 · see citing works
Scaling up the accuracy of Naive-Bayes classifiers: a decision-tree hybrid
Kohavi, R. (1996) · Cited by 1,404 · see citing works
Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098095 · Cited by 1,149 · see citing works
(2013) · Cited by 1,126 · see citing works
Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017) · Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43 · Cited by 943 · see citing works
Boosting Algorithms as Gradient Descent
Mason, L., Baxter, J., Bartlett, P. L., & Frean, M. R. (1999) · Cited by 773 · see citing works
Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries
Kearns, M. J. (1998) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/293347.293351 · Cited by 679 · see citing works
Boosting: foundations and algorithms
Schapire, R. E., & Freund, Y. (2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-2112 · Cited by 521 · see citing works
On Fairness and CalibrationPreprint
Pleiss, G., Raghavan, M., Wu, F., Kleinberg, J. M., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1709.02012 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Schapire, R. E., & Freund, Y. (2012) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/8291.001.0001 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness
Kearns, M., Neel, S., Roth, A., & Wu, Z. S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05144 · Cited by 381 · cited 10× · see citing works
“This connection between subpopulation fairness and learning is also made in [13, 16, 19], albeit for different tasks.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe reusable holdout: Preserving validity in adaptive data analysis
Dwork, C., Feldman, V., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Roth, A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa9375 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Fairness Without Demographics in Repeated Loss MinimizationPreprint
Hashimoto, T., Srivastava, M., Namkoong, H., & Liang, P. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.08010 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
How Much Does Your Data Exploration Overfit? Controlling Bias via Information Usage
Russo, D., & Zou, J. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2019.2945779 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Self-citationToward Efficient Agnostic Learning
Kearns, M. J., Schapire, R. E., & Sellie, L. M. (1994) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00993468 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Fairness Through Computationally-Bounded Awareness
Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., & Rothblum, G. N. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.03239 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Self-citationRegularity, Boosting, and Efficiently Simulating Every High-Entropy Distribution
Trevisan, L., Tulsiani, M., & Vadhan, S. (2009) · Proceedings - IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/ccc.2009.41 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Calibration for the (Computationally-Identifiable) MassesPreprint
Hébert-Johnson, Ú., Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., & Rothblum, G. N. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.08513 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationOn agnostic boosting and parity learning
Kalai, A. T., Mansour, Y., & Verbin, E. (2008) · ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) · doi:10.1145/1374376.1374466 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in ClassificationPreprint
Kim, M. P., Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.12317 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationDecoupled classifiers for fair and efficient machine learningPreprint
Dwork, C., Immorlica, N., Kalai, A. T., & Leiserson, M. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.06613 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Probably Approximately Metric-Fair Learning
Yona, G., & Rothblum, G. N. (2018) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Distribution-specific agnostic boostingPreprint
Feldman, V. (2010) · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Angwin , J. , Larson , J. , Mattu , S. , and Kirchner , L . Machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it's biased against blacks. ProPublica ( 2016 ). Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., and Kirchner, L. Machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it's biased against blacks. ProPublica (2016).
- Chouldechova , A. , and G'Sell , M. Fairer and more accurate, but for whom? FATML ( 2016 ). Chouldechova, A., and G'Sell, M. Fairer and more accurate, but for whom? FATML (2016).
- Lipton , Z. C. , Wang , Y. , and Smola , A. J . Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. ICML ( 2018 ). Lipton, Z. C., Wang, Y., and Smola, A. J. Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. ICML (2018).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition: A Survey
Shafiq, M., & Gu, Z. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12188972 · Cited by 1,045 · see citing works
Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering
Tannenbaum, C., Ellis, R. P., Eyssel, F., Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. L. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 · Cited by 587 · see citing works
Self-citationAdvances, challenges and opportunities in creating data for trustworthy AI
Liang, W., Tadesse, G. A., Ho, D. E., Fei-Fei, L., Zaharia, M., Zhang, C., & Zou, J. (2022) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00516-1 · Cited by 582 · see citing works
Self-citationFairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
Data-centric Artificial Intelligence: A Survey
Zha, D., Bhat, Z. P., Lai, K.-H., Yang, F., Jiang, Z., Zhong, S., & Hu, X. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3711118 · Cited by 508 · see citing works
A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning
Chouldechova, A., & Roth, A. (2020) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3376898 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Oneto, L., & Chiappa, S. (2020) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43883-8_7 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Towards Out-Of-Distribution Generalization: A Survey
Liu, J., Shen, Z., He, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, R., Yu, H., & Cui, P. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.13624 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine LearningPreprint
Chouldechova, A., & Roth, A. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.08810 · Cited by 372 · see citing works
Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering
Kouba, P., Kohout, P., Haddadi, F., Bushuiev, A., Samusevich, R., Sedlář, J., Damborský, J., Pluskal, T., Šivic, J., & Mazurenko, S. (2023) · ACS Catalysis · doi:10.1021/acscatal.3c02743 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
FairFed: Enabling Group Fairness in Federated Learning
Ezzeldin, Y. H., Yan, S., He, C., Ferrara, E., & Avestimehr, A. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i6.25911 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04053 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
Ensuring that biomedical AI benefits diverse populations
Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2021) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103358 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Forgotten Margins of AI Ethics
Birhane, A., Ruane, E., Laurent, T., Brown, M. S., Flowers, J., Ventresque, A., & Dancy, C. L. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533157 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Wani, S. U. D., Khan, N. A., Thakur, G. S., Gautam, S. P., Ali, M., Alam, P., Alshehri, S., Ghoneim, M. M., & Shakeel, F. (2022) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare10040608 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted LearningPreprint
Lahoti, P., Beutel, A., Chen, J., Lee, K., Prost, F., Thain, N., Wang, X., & Ed, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.13114 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Fair Class Balancing: Enhancing Model Fairness without Observing Sensitive Attributes
Yan, S., Kao, H.-T., & Ferrara, E. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3340531.3411980 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Mitigating face recognition bias via group adaptive classifier
Gong, S., Liu, X., & Jain, A. K. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00342 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Minkkinen, M., Laine, J., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-022-00022-2 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Wang, A., Ramaswamy, V., & Russakovsky, O. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533101 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Yücer, Ş., Akçay, S., Al-Moubayed, N., & Breckon, T. P. (2020) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw50498.2020.00017 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Neuron Shapley: Discovering the Responsible NeuronsPreprint
Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.09815 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Role of Explainable AI in the Research Field of AI Ethics
Vainio-Pekka, H., Agbese, M., Jantunen, M., Vakkuri, V., Mikkonen, T., Rousi, R. A., & Abrahamsson, P. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3599974 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Are “Intersectionally Fair” AI Algorithms Really Fair to Women of Color? A Philosophical Analysis
Kong, Y. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533114 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Fairness in Semi-Supervised Learning: Unlabeled Data Help to Reduce Discrimination
Zhang, T., Zhu, T., Li, J., Han, M., Zhou, W., & Yu, P. S. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2020.3002567 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
The Spotlight: A General Method for Discovering Systematic Errors in Deep Learning Models
d'Eon, G., d’Eon, J., Wright, J. R., & Leyton‐Brown, K. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533240 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Social impacts of algorithmic decision-making: A research agenda for the social sciences
Gerdon, F., Bach, R. L., Kern, C. A., & Kreuter, F. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221089305 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Differentially Private and Fair Deep Learning: A Lagrangian Dual Approach
Tran, C., Fioretto, F., & Hentenryck, P. V. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i11.17193 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Understanding and Improving Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Multi-Task Learning
Wang, Y., Wang, X., Beutel, A., Prost, F., Chen, J., & Chi, E. H. (2021) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3447548.3467326 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Fairness in Risk Assessment Instruments
Mishler, A., Kennedy, E. H., & Chouldechova, A. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445902 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
A systematic review of fairness in machine learning
Rabonato, R. T., & Berton, L. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00577-5 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Mitigating Biases in Multimodal Personality Assessment
Yan, S., Huang, D., & Soleymani, M. (2020) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/3382507.3418889 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
SliceTeller : A Data Slice-Driven Approach for Machine Learning Model Validation
Zhang, X., Ono, J. P., Song, H., Gou, L., Ma, K., & Ren, L. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209465 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Counterfactual Fairness with Disentangled Causal Effect Variational Autoencoder
Kim, H., Shin, S., Jang, J., Song, K., Joo, W., Kang, W., & Moon, I. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16990 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
With Malice Toward None: Assessing Uncertainty via Equalized Coverage
Romano, Y., Barber, R. F., Sabatti, C., & Candès, E. J. (2020) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.03f00592 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Fairness in Semi-supervised Learning: Unlabeled Data Help to Reduce Discrimination
Zhang, T., zhu, T., Li, J., Han, M., Zhou, W., & Yu, P. (2021) · OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Luo, Y., Tian, Y., Shi, M., Pasquale, L. R., Shen, L. Q., Zebardast, N., Elze, T., & Wang, M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2024.3377552 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Cheong, J., Kalkan, S., & Güneş, H. (2021) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2021.3106619 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Multi-disciplinary fairness considerations in machine learning for clinical trials
Chien, I., Deliu, N., Turner, R. E., Weller, A., Villar, S. S., & Kilbertus, N. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533154 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Kuppler, M., Kern, C. A., Bach, R. L., & Kreuter, F. (2022) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2022.883999 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case ComparisonsPreprint
Ghosh, A., Genuit, L., & Reagan, M. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.01673 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Deng, C., Duan, Y., Jin, X., Chang, H., Tian, Y., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Gao, K., Zou, H. P., Jin, Y., et al. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00797-3 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Adomavicius, G., & Yang, M. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3519420 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Average Individual Fairness: Algorithms, Generalization and ExperimentsPreprint
Kearns, M. J., Roth, A., & Sharifi-Malvajerdi, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.10607 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
InfoFair: Information-Theoretic Intersectional Fairness
Kang, J. L., Xie, T., Wu, X., Maciejewski, R., & Tong, H. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata55660.2022.10020588 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective LabelsPreprint
Coston, A., Rambachan, A., & Chouldechova, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.00352 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
FairDomain: Achieving Fairness in Cross-Domain Medical Image Segmentation and Classification
Tian, Y., Wen, C., Shi, M., Afzal, M. M., Huang, H. M., Khan, M. O., Luo, Y., Fang, Y., & Wang, M. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73116-7_15 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Dwork, C., Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., Rothblum, G. N., & Yona, G. (2021) · ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) · doi:10.1145/3406325.3451064 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationAnalyzing the Impact of Personalization on Fairness in Federated Learning for Healthcare
Wang, T., Zhang, K., Cai, J., Gong, Y., Choo, K. R., & Guo, Y. (2024) · Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.1007/s41666-024-00164-7 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Clemmer, C., Ding, J., & Feng, Y. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00840 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Pfohl, S. R., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Foryciarz, A., Ghassemi, M., & Shah, N. H. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07167-7 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Fairness improvement for black-box classifiers with Gaussian process
Nguyen, D., Gupta, S., Rana, S., Shilton, A. P., & Venkatesh, S. (2021) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.06.095 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Image fairness in deep learning: problems, models, and challenges
Tian, H., Zhu, T., Liu, W., & Zhou, W. (2022) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07136-1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Black, E., Naidu, R. C. A., Ghani, R., Rodolfa, K. T., Ho, D. E., & Heidari, H. (2023) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623259 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
MinMax fairness: from Rawlsian Theory of Justice to solution for algorithmic bias
Barsotti, F., & Koçer, R. G. (2022) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01577-x · Cited by 18 · see citing works
To Split or not to Split: The Impact of Disparate Treatment in Classification
Wang, H., Hsu, H., Díaz, M., & Calmon, F. P. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2021.3075415 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Ethical implications of fairness interventions: what might be hidden behind engineering choices?
Tubella, A. A., Barsotti, F., Koçer, R. G., & Mendez, J. (2022) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09636-z · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Auditing and Achieving Intersectional Fairness in Classification ProblemsPreprint
Morina, G., Oliinyk, V., Waton, J., Marušić, I., & Georgatzis, K. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.01468 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Fairness in Ranking under UncertaintyPreprint
Singh, A., Kempe, D., & Joachims, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.06720 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Angelucci, A., Li, Z., Stoimenova, N., & Canali, S. (2022) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01562-4 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Miller, K. (2020) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-3130-3.ch010 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Practical Compositional Fairness: Understanding Fairness in Multi-Component Recommender Systems
Wang, X., Thain, N., Sinha, A., Prost, F., Ed, H., Chen, J., & Beutel, A. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3437963.3441732 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
An Algorithmic Framework for Bias Bounties
Globus-Harris, I., Kearns, M. J., & Roth, A. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533172 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Review of Mathematical frameworks for Fairness in Machine LearningPreprint
del Barrio, E., Gordaliza, P., & Loubes, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.13755 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Universal adaptability: Target-independent inference that competes with propensity scoring
Kim, M. P., Kern, C. A., Goldwasser, S., Kreuter, F., & Reingold, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2108097119 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationBerk, R. A., Kuchibhotla, A. K., & Tchetgen, E. T. (2022) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-033021-120649 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Causal Intersectionality and Fair RankingPreprint
Yang, K., Loftus, J. R., & Stoyanovich, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.forc.2021.7 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Identification of Systematic Errors of Image Classifiers on Rare Subgroups
Metzen, J. H., Hutmacher, R., Hua, N. G., Boreiko, V., & Zhang, D. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00467 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Comprehensive Validation on Reweighting Samples for Bias Mitigation via AIF360
Blow, C. H., Qian, L., Gibson, C. A., Obiomon, P., & Dong, X. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14093826 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The Crucial Role of Sensitive Attributes in Fair Classification
Haeri, M. A., & Zweig, K. A. (2020) · IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci47803.2020.9308585 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
A Multi-Objective Framework for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy in Debiasing Machine Learning Models
Nagpal, R., Khan, A., Borkar, M., & Gupta, A. D. (2024) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make6030105 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Fairness in Risk Assessment Instruments: Post-Processing to Achieve Counterfactual Equalized OddsPreprint
Mishler, A., Kennedy, E. H., & Chouldechova, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.02841 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Learning from Outcomes: Evidence-Based Rankings
Dwork, C., Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., Rothblum, G. N., & Yona, G. (2019) · Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science · doi:10.1109/focs.2019.00016 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationPrivacy and Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Shaham, S., Hajisafi, A., Quan, M. K., Nguyen, D. C., Krishnamachari, B., Peris, C., Ghinita, G., Shahabi, C., & Pathirana, P. N. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3531326 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
MLHOps: Machine Learning Health Operations
Khattak, F. K., Subasri, V., Krishnan, A., Pou-Prom, C., Koçak, S. A., Dolatabadi, E., Pandya, D., Seyyed-Kalantari, L., & Rudzicz, F. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3521279 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Moment Multicalibration for Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Jung, C., Lee, C., Pai, M. M., Roth, A., & Vohra, R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.08037 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Datta, A., & Swamidass, S. J. (2022) · International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART) · doi:10.5220/0010877400003116 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Fairness in graph-based semi-supervised learning
Zhang, T., Zhu, T., Han, M., Chen, F., Li, J., Zhou, W., & Yu, P. S. (2022) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-022-01738-w · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Representation Matters: Assessing the Importance of Subgroup Allocations in Training DataPreprint
Rolf, E., Worledge, T., Recht, B., & Jordan, M. I. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.03399 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Disentangling and Operationalizing AI Fairness at LinkedIn
Candela, J. Q., Wu, Y., Hsu, B., Jain, S., Ramos, J., Adams, J., Hallman, R., & Basu, K. (2023) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594075 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Bechný, M., Fiorillo, L., van der Meer, J., Schmidt, M. H., Bassetti, C. L., Tzovara, A., & Faraci, F. D. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-06019-4 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Fair classification via Monte Carlo policy gradient method
Petrović, A., Nikolić, M., Jovanović, M., Bijanić, M., & Delibašić, B. (2021) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104398 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Advancing Subgroup Fairness via Sleeping ExpertsPreprint
Blum, A. L., & Lykouris, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2020.55 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class CalibrationPreprint
Zhao, S.-J., Kim, M. P., Sahoo, R., Ma, T., & Ermon, S. (2021) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.05719 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationRolf, E., Simchowitz, M., Dean, S., Liu, L. T., Björkegren, D., Hardt, M., & Blumenstock, J. E. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.06740 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Distributive Justice and Fairness Metrics in Automated Decision-making: How Much Overlap Is There?Preprint
Kuppler, M., Kern, C. A., Bach, R. L., & Kreuter, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.01441 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
FADE: FAir Double Ensemble Learning for Observable and Counterfactual Outcomes
Mishler, A., & Kennedy, E. H. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533167 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Olesen, V., Weng, N., Feragen, A., & Petersen, E. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72787-0_1 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Dang, V. N., Campello, V. M., Hernández-González, J., & Lekadir, K. (2025) · Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.1007/s41666-025-00196-7 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Revisiting model fairness via adversarial examples
Zhang, T., Zhu, T., Li, J., Zhou, W., & Yu, P. S. (2023) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110777 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Group Fairness via Group Consensus
Chan, E., Liu, Z., Qiu, R., Zhang, Y., Maciejewski, R., & Tong, H. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659006 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Malashin, I. P., Masich, I. S., Тынченко, В. С., Nelyub, V., Бородулин, А. С., & Gantimurov, A. (2024) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc8060068 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Multiaccurate Proxies for Downstream Fairness
Diana, E., Gill, W., Kearns, M. J., Kenthapadi, K., Roth, A., & Sharifi-Malvajerdi, S. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533180 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Mitigating the Bias of Heterogeneous Human Behavior in Affective Computing
Yan, S., Kao, H.-T., Lerman, K., Narayanan, S. S., & Ferrara, E. (2021) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and workshops · doi:10.1109/acii52823.2021.9597439 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Algorithmic fairness datasets: the story so far
Fabris, A., Messina, S., Silvello, G., & Susto, G. A. (2022) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-022-00854-z · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Controllable Universal Fair Representation Learning
Cui, Y., Ma, C., Zheng, K., Chen, L., & Zhou, X. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583307 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Towards Fairness-aware Adversarial Network Pruning
Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Dong, X., Feng, Y., Pang, X., Zhang, Z., & Ren, K. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00477 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Who's responsible? Jointly quantifying the contribution of the learning algorithm and training dataPreprint
Yona, G., Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.04214 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationBlack Loans Matter: Distributionally Robust Fairness for Fighting Subgroup DiscriminationPreprint
Weber, M., Yurochkin, M., Botros, S., & Markov, V. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.01193 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Reducing bias in healthcare artificial intelligence: A white paper
Sun, C., & Harris, S. L. (2024) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582241291410 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kim, M. P., Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-01-27
- Pages
- 247-254
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2962925443
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 25.26
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- NSF (CCF-1763299)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, algorithmic auditing, post-processing, black-box access, algorithmic bias, fairness and accountability, image classification, credit scoring, population health
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
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