PreprintCited by 19Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Discrimination and Equality Law

End-To-End Bias Mitigation: Removing Gender Bias in Deep Learning

Open access
Feldman, Tal, Peake, Ashley·2021·arXiv

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2104.02532

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feldman, T., & Peake, A.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
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
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