Cited by 193Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classification

Open access
Kim, Michael P., Ghorbani, Amirata, Zou, James·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3306618.3314287

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

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
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Multiaccuracy 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    CelebA 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Multiaccuracy 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In 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.

    Interpretationcitation

    The 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 given

    Multiaccuracy 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The 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 claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Our 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 given

    Even 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The 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 claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Our 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).

    Interpretationcitation

    Multiaccuracy 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    At 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 given

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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 data

    Multiaccuracy 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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    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.

    “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
28 of 28
  • 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).”
9 of 9

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

    Minor

    Weighting the reported Black and White SS errors by their population shares gives about 18.99%, rather than the reported overall error of 19.7%.

  • Equation (17) is not equal to equation (16)

    Minor

    The 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.

  • Adult income MA overall error conflicts with race-group errors

    Minor

    Black 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.

3 of 3

Cites

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

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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

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
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