End-To-End Bias Mitigation: Removing Gender Bias in Deep Learning
Open accessAbstract
Machine Learning models have been deployed across many different aspects of society, often in situations that affect social welfare. Although these models offer streamlined solutions to large problems, they may contain biases and treat groups or individuals unfairly based on protected attributes such as gender. In this paper, we introduce several examples of machine learning gender bias in practice followed by formalizations of fairness. We provide a survey of fairness research by detailing influential pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing bias mitigation algorithms. We then propose an end-to-end bias mitigation framework, which employs a fusion of pre-, in-, and post-processing methods to leverage the strengths of each individual technique. We test this method, along with the standard techniques we review, on a deep neural network to analyze bias mitigation in a deep learning setting. We find that our end-to-end bias mitigation framework outperforms the baselines with respect to several fairness metrics, suggesting its promise as a method for improving fairness. As society increasingly relies on artificial intelligence to help in decision-making, addressing gender biases present in deep learning models is imperative. To provide readers with the tools to assess the fairness of machine learning models and mitigate the biases present in them, we discuss multiple open source packages for fairness in AI.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Preprocessing bias mitigation algorithms are independent of the model and can be used in a black-box setting by altering the data distribution to increase model fairness.
“Additionally, these are independent of the model and can be used in a black-box setting by altering the data distribution to increase model fairness.76”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Post-processing methods can be used in black-box settings because they do not require access to model parameters.
“These post-processing methods can be used in black-box settings, similar to preprocessing methods, as they do not require access to model parameters.76”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Post-processing methods mitigate bias after model training by changing prediction based on fairness constraints.
“Finally, another set of methods mitigates bias in a post-processing phase after model training by changing prediction based on fairness constraints.76”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615 · see citing works
Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2012) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-011-0463-8 · Cited by 1,305 · see citing works
Fairness definitions explained
Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness · doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776 · Cited by 1,124 · see citing works
Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraints
Zhao, J., Wang, T., Yatskar, M., Ordonez, V., & Chang, K.-W. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1323 · Cited by 829 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Zhao et al. propose a method for training a fair classifier by injecting corpus-level constraints [49].”
The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance
Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.011 · Cited by 363 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The authors thank Dr. Sarra Alqahtani for her support and comments on the manuscript. complex and the data more abundant, accuracy increases but transparency often decreases [6].”
Fairness GAN: Generating datasets with fairness properties using a generative adversarial network
Sattigeri, P., Hoffman, S. C., Chenthamarakshan, V., & Varshney, K. R. (2019) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2019.2945519 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Bayati, M., Braverman, M., Gillam, M., Mack, K. M., Ruiz, G., Smith, M. S., & Horvitz, E. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109264 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Cyberbullying Detection With Fairness Constraints
Gencoglu, O. (2021) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2020.3032461 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Koçak, B., Ponsiglione, A., Stanzione, A., Bluethgen, C., Santinha, J., Ugga, L., Huisman, M., Klontzas, M. E., Cannella, R., & Cuocolo, R. (2024) · Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.4274/dir.2024.242854 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
“76 To achieve this effect, discriminatory effects within data are first quantified and then removed or accounted for.”
Influential
- Authors
- Feldman, T., & Peake, A.
- Affiliations
- Wake Forest University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2104.02532
- OpenAlex
- W3174110146
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- gender bias, algorithmic fairness, bias mitigation, data preprocessing, in-processing, post-processing, deep neural network, fairness metrics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review